[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 109 (Tuesday, September 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7126-H7136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 770 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. 5025.
{time} 1640
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. 5025) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation
and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from 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,
and I am pleased to present to the House the appropriations bill H.R.
5025, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and
Treasury, and independent agencies for fiscal year 2005.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most fiscally responsible bills that
we have considered this year. It is a large bill. It is a diverse bill.
It includes funding for the Department of Transportation, the Treasury
Department, the General Services Administration, the Executive Office
of the President, National Archives, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Personnel Management and many other agencies that are
[[Page H7127]]
critical to the functioning of our Federal Government.
This measure is also one that includes a number of government-wide
general provisions that are there to facilitate efficiency and
effectiveness in the day-to-day functions of large and small Federal
agencies.
Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of budget constraints this year. In
examining the budget picture for this particular bill, it is important
to note that this bill is within the budget that has been produced by
this House of Representatives and the allocation that has been provided
to this subcommittee.
Of course, the Congress, working with the President and his
administration, has rightfully put a priority on spending for the
ongoing conflict in Iraq and the war on terror. At the same time, we
have a serious Federal deficit. These have forced this body and our
Committee on Appropriations and our subcommittee to make many difficult
and challenging choices. This bill reflects the difficulty of those
choices.
In fact, if you look at this bill, Mr. Chairman, and compare it with
last year's parallel bill, you will find that this particular measure
is $3 billion below the amount that we spent on the same accounts last
year. There are reasons that it is not a pure apples-to-apples
comparison, but, nevertheless, the bill is below what the similar
funding was for last year. That reflects, again, the priority choices
and the tough choices we have made.
So we will hear, during debate upon this measure, many people say,
``Oh, I wish we had more money for this program or that or some
other.'' But the answer is that we do not. We are in deficit spending
already, and this is about as fiscally responsible a bill as you will
find before this body this year.
Overall, the bill provides a total of $89.9 billion for the
Department of Transportation, for the Treasury Department, the Internal
Revenue Service, highways, transit, rail programs, seafaring programs,
and the heart of the executive branch, including the White House
itself.
{time} 1645
Overall, for salary and expense accounts, the bill does provide
increases, some 2.6 percent, but that is within the context of a bill
that overall is $3 billion less than the bill last year, so many
agencies will have to do some belt tightening. We have tried to give
them the maximum flexibility to manage those resources.
I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) did not have the funds he would have liked to have had to put
into highways and other forms of transportation, but he gave us a fair
allocation and I am grateful for it. Not only is it $3 billion below
last year's spending on these accounts, it is below the amounts
requested by the President in his budget.
There were some highly controversial provisions we did not include.
Some Members said if you can put a provision in the bill to end a
process known as dumping, which has to do with reparation payments to
industry to offset unfair trade practices, then you can grab over a
billion dollars to put back into the bill. That would not have been
good because whatever Members' position on dumping is, it has not
passed the House and we cannot assume we will have the money.
Despite the budget constraints we have, I am pleased we have been
able to improve the most important part of our transportation network,
and that is funding for highways. The $34 billion in this bill for
highway funding is a billion dollars above the funding level for
highways last year. So in the context of a bill that itself is $3
billion below last year, when we are still able to improve highway
funding, that shows we have addressed priorities and tried to put the
money where it is most important.
That money for highways is going to be good news for the economy
because each billion dollar investment is estimated to create some
40,000 jobs.
There is also some confusion in the context of this bill, Mr.
Chairman, because we have a two-stage process. We have still pending in
the conference committee a surface transportation highways and transit
reauthorization bill. I do not want to confuse this bill with that. The
reauthorization bill establishes a framework for spending
transportation dollars, but this bill actually provides the money. We
do not have a new framework created, so we have had to assume the old
framework remains in place, but we are going to have some controversy
over that because we have not been able to achieve passage into law of
a highway reauthorization bill. We have some technicalities, some rules
of this House, and I know many Members are going to come forward and
raise points of order. They are going to say you have to strike this
part out of the bill because we have not authorized it.
Well, we have been waiting a year for an authorization bill which has
not happened. We had to do our work anyway. Some Members may want to
pick the bill apart and say you are putting money into something that
is not authorized. Under the rules of the House they may be successful
in doing that. But I want to reassure every Member of this body that we
are going to repair those things when it gets to conference. We are
going to have the same kind of responsible bill that the Committee on
Appropriations has produced that comes out of conference regardless of
how Members may want to pick at it with parliamentary tactics on the
House floor today.
It is not the fault of the Committee on Appropriations that a
reauthorization measure has not passed as the rules of the House
dictate it should have been a year ago.
Looking at some other details of the bill, the FAA, the Federal
Aviation Administration, will receive a 3 percent increase for its
operations, less than they requested, but more than the government-wide
average for nondefense, nonhomeland security programs. That again is
because we have put priority into aviation funding, just as we have in
highway funding, and we have put cuts in place elsewhere in the bill to
compensate for that.
The bill meets the aviation funding guarantees mandated by
authorizing legislation which has passed this body. It provides the
budget request for the capital investment programs of the FAA and
grants-in-aid for airports all across America.
The essential air service program, which I am not personally fond of,
but one which is important to many Members of this body, receives the
same funding as it did in fiscal year 2004. And there is $20 million
for the small community air service program.
Amtrak is always a point of controversy in this House. The bill
proposes $900 million for Amtrak, the same amount suggested by the
administration in their budget proposal, and I believe it is a
responsible number for Amtrak because Amtrak still has not resolved its
long-term problems, and we have not developed the kind of partnerships
that we need with States and communities that want Amtrak service
investing in Amtrak service. The administration believes and I agree
that realistic Amtrak reform has to be enacted before we start putting
more money into that passenger rail service.
The Secretary of Transportation and the President and his
administration believe the amount in this bill is sufficient to keep
that rail service operating in the next year, and I agree with them.
Funding for transit in the bill is essentially at the level of fiscal
year 2004, also the same as the administration requested, but we have
done some adjustment inside of the numbers. Within the overall total,
we have put more of the transit funding into the formula grant program
that goes into every community in every State in the country on a
formula basis. That benefits everyone. We put more money through the
formula and less in the so-called new starts program which is fixed
guideway and light rail programs, and so forth, which only benefit a
handful of communities. We have tried to put the transit funding more
than ever before into a formula that benefits everyone, not just select
areas of the country.
I want to make one more comment about the new starts program. We do
not know how much money is going to be available over the next 5 years
to fund these expensive rail systems that a lot of communities want and
often do not do the necessary cost-benefit analysis. The Department of
Transportation Inspector General told us this year there are far more
systems being proposed than we will ever have money to pay for. The
requests exceed the resources by billions of dollars, so this
[[Page H7128]]
bill takes a prudent step to slow down that program, put money instead
into the formula grants instead of making some decisions that we might
regret tomorrow on how we prioritize the new starts program. But the
bill does fund all of the existing full funding grant agreements on new
start programs that are between different communities and the Federal
Transit Administration.
In the Treasury Department of this bill, which includes the Internal
Revenue Service, we essentially have funded it at the same level of
fiscal year 2004. Some of the proposals we believe need further
refinement. New initiatives such as the IRS initiative to increase its
hiring to improve collections are too financially ambitious for the
budget climate we have.
One of the largest increases in the bill, 12.7 percent, goes to what
is known as FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. It is
part of the Department of Treasury and it is part of counterterrorism
activities, trying to disrupt the financial basis of terrorists.
When we look at another part of the bill, the Executive Office, the
President, the White House and the offices that work with the White
House, it is actually a little below last year's because we have
reduced contract programs. The bill includes funding for the majority
of the construction program of the GSA, General Services
Administration. That is the landlord for the Federal Government. But
even though it includes the majority of the GSA construction program
and GSA says it has something like a $7 billion backlog, we have shaved
back those requests to meet our budget allocation.
All 12 border stations that are proposed in the budget request are
fully funded because of the priority that we have given to homeland
security. A more complete summary of all of the funding levels in the
bill, as well as significant provision, is in the committee report at
pages 3 and 4, and I direct Members to those pages.
Mr. Chairman, a final comment before I close my debate for now. My
final comment is about the messiness that I know we are going to
experience with the points of order and money in the bill being
stricken. We are probably going to have to offer some amendments on
what do we do with the money. I would just as soon have it go to pay
the national debt, but in our protocol that is not how it works in this
process. So if some money is stricken on points of order, I will offer
the necessary amendments to park that money into some of the major
accounts with the understanding that when we get to conference we will
be overcoming the parliamentary problems of those points of order and
restoring that money to the transportation programs which I think some
people are going to try to take it from with their points of order.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), our ranking
member. The gentleman presents his personal views and the views of the
minority tenaciously and effectively and is good to work with. I
appreciate that and his no-nonsense approach to things.
I also appreciate our staff that has worked so well and will
reiterate a thank you to them later on before we close this debate.
This is a good, solid bill. It is responsible. It merits and deserves
the support of every Member of this body, and I ask that Members
support it when we come to passage of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Chairman Istook) for working so hard to get this bill to the floor. I
suspect from the comments the gentleman has made and what I know about
what is likely to go forward today, he is going to be working even
harder to keep this bill moving in the days ahead.
I would also like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for
their work on the bill: On the minority side, Mike Malone and Bob
Bonner from our appropriations staff; and on the majority side, Rich
Efford, Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, and Kurt Dodd. I may be missing
somebody, but at least those for the majority. This bill has become
more complex than any of us thought it would, and I appreciate all of
their efforts and all of the efforts that they will be asked to make.
As Members know, the Congress has not adopted a budget resolution for
fiscal year 2005. Instead, the deemed resolution under which the House
is operating and which placed tax cuts number one among all priorities,
resulted in a severely constrained 302(b) allocation for this
subcommittee, along with several other subcommittees of the Committee
on Appropriations.
I give credit to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) to
distribute the pain broadly, if not totally evenly, and for making
significant adjustments during the subcommittee and full committee
deliberations, particularly in regard to hiring additional air traffic
controllers in anticipation of the impending wave of controller
retirements which everyone except the Department of Transportation
seems to know is coming, and in regard to better funding the Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network, one of the Treasury Department's front
lines against terrorism, yet the subcommittee's abysmal allocation
precluded us from fixing several more serious problems with the bill.
On the transportation side, Mr. Chairman, every major account in the
Department of Transportation is underfunded. The bill only provides
$900 million for Amtrak, which I would say parenthetically, to parse
the chairman's words, is another program of which he is not
particularly fond. At this level there should be no surprise next
spring when Amtrak must curtail services. And furthermore, as critical
maintenance is further deferred, we risk serious to catastrophic
accidents on the very trackage for which Congress has direct
responsibility in our budgetary process.
Transit programs are also underfunded. The new starts transit account
is $300 million below the President's request.
{time} 1700
There are so many new urban areas growing in this country, areas that
are rising in population at substantially larger than the average
population increase year by year in this country where it is becoming
totally unthinkable to simply add additional lanes of highways and
where more and more of them are thinking about how to use bus transit,
rail transit, various kinds of programs, under the transit
administration; and the new starts transit account is $300 million
below the President's request to deal with those needs.
The FAA's operations account is well below the President's fiscal
year 2005 request and the FAA facilities and equipment account is
nearly $400 million below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The two
highway safety agencies, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, taken together, are
cut by 25 percent below the President's request. Those are two major
highway safety programs. They are not terribly large, but they are cut
from the President's request by 25 percent, one much higher than the
other.
Even the Federal Highway Administration, which is up 1.5 percent from
the enacted fiscal year 2004 budget, is underfunded because 1.5 percent
is well below the standard overall inflation rate. Fifteen percent of
our whole economy comes from the transportation industry, broadly
taken, and the chairman has already pointed out that construction in
transportation infrastructure produces, he used the number 40,000 jobs
per $1 billion. My understanding is that the Department of
Transportation typically uses 45,000 jobs per $1 billion of
construction, but we do not need to quibble about that. I will accept
his number and he probably would accept my number as being in the
ballpark.
So that moneys in the transportation budget and in the Federal
highway budget, particularly vitally important for infrastructure
improvements all over the country, construction in every mode of
transportation costs more every year as the population and congestion
increase.
I do not understand what the benefit is to us as individuals in our
districts and to the people of America in general cutting below
inflation, at least below inflation and in some cases far beyond below
inflation, of programs in the transportation area.
On the Treasury portion of this budget, the IRS tax law enforcement
account is $286 million below the President's request and nearly half a
billion
[[Page H7129]]
dollars below what the IRS oversight board says is needed to properly
enforce tax laws in fiscal year 2005.
Since we have had sworn testimony that moneys expended properly on
tax law enforcement brings in on average a six-to-one return, thereby
the proper use of $286 million would bring in nearly $2 billion of
additional revenue. In effect, we are giving tax cuts to tax cheaters
by not fully funding the tax law enforcement request that the President
made.
Secondly, on the Treasury portion, language is included that bars the
use of matricula consular identification cards, language which is
harmful to homeland security and the Department of Treasury's fight
against terrorist financing. I am hopeful that that language will be
taken out of this bill before it becomes law.
On the floor today and in conference, I hope we will be able to
rectify these problems and have strong bipartisan support for the end
product that we hope to produce as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 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 bill, and I do appreciate the hard
work that the subcommittee has been grappling with. Clearly, there is
not enough money that is allocated to meet all of the varied
transportation interests that we have. I also appreciate that this is a
dynamic process and that there is going to be probably more give and
take on top of the give and take that has occurred.
I would like to speak briefly on behalf of three simple points.
First, I heard the chairman talk about the new starts being
oversubscribed and talked about how there is more in the pipeline than
is likely to be funded at current levels for some time. I agree
wholeheartedly, but I would think that that is a signal, a signal about
the popularity and the importance of these programs across the country,
the way the chairman a moment ago talked about the need for more
highway funding because of the need for highways.
We have an extraordinarily popular and important program for
communities across the country, including some that may not leap to
mind for people thinking about multimodal transportation systems, like
in Houston, Texas, where the voters there just this last fall, actually
against formidable political opposition, the voters decided that they
were going to extend that program. It simply as yet does not keep pace
with demand, but we have a broad and growing range of interest around
the country.
I would suggest that unlike the highway projects which are basically
an entitlement that are not subjected to rigorous analysis in terms of
cost-benefit, I know of no projects in the Federal arena in terms of
major capital outlay that are subjected to more aggressive cost-benefit
analysis than what we do now to the new starts. I think they meet the
test. They are in community after community proving to be the most
cost-effective ways of reducing congestion, far more effective than
spending a similar amount simply widening roads as has been the case in
the past. That is why it is popular. That is why it has been supported
by Republican and Democratic administrations. That is why we see it in
communities large and small across the country.
I am concerned, because I know that there has been some report
language that talks about how to deal with the weighing of land-use
considerations. I would respectfully suggest that this is an area that
I think the FTA can, in fact, improve its performance; but it is
rather, I would suggest, looking at the value of land use rather than
to undervalue land-use criteria.
What community after community is finding is that if you do not look
at supportive land uses around transportation facilities, without
proper land use you can have them be ineffective, you can have a road
project that is basically producing congestion the day it is opened if
you are not careful with what the land uses are there. We ought to
strengthen the land use provisions, not weaken them. That was part of
the original ISTEA. That was part of TEA-21. That is part of what is
going through the process now if we ever reauthorize the Surface
Transportation Act. This is in TEA-LU.
I would hope that we could work with the FTA to balance, to
strengthen, to give more of these choices and, frankly, to provide some
weight to the economic development potential of these activities. My
concern is at the FTA now there is not enough weight for the economic
development potential of transportation. I have seen it, and I can give
example after example where it has arisen. I would hope that we are
able to provide proper weight for it.
The final point that I wanted to raise deals with Amtrak. I am
concerned that the Republican leadership, with their Rules Committee,
that we have not been able to protect the spending under Amtrak and
maybe subject it to a point of order.
This continues an ongoing drama we have here where the administration
proposes to undercut it, where there are proposals here in the House to
chop it down even further, but it is always restored because it is
something the public understands is an essential part of our
transportation infrastructure. It is critical in corridors like in the
Northeast. It is something that we have historically starved and
underfunded. We have spent less in total of Amtrak's entire history
than we do in 1 year of highway spending.
I would hope that we not get involved with that charade this time
where we go through the motions of cutting Amtrak funding or even
eliminating it, because the American public will not stand for it. It
will ultimately be reinstated, but it undercuts the effective
administration that we see with the new director, Peter Gunn, who is
the best I have seen since I have been in Congress. They deserve better
and so does the rail passenger public.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his generous
yielding of time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my concern about the funding in
this bill. I realize the chairman's hands are tied by the allocation
given to the subcommittee which is in turn driven by the budget
resolution passed by the House earlier this year, but not passed by the
Congress. I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey for doing the
best they could with the limited resources available to this committee,
but this committee did not have sufficient funds to meet its
responsibilities.
This highlights the fact that the decisions we make about the budget
and taxes have real consequences. With this bill today, we
unfortunately see one major result of our decisions. We have failed to
live up to the commitments we made to our constituents.
I am, however, pleased in certain instances that we have followed the
President's recommendation. The FDA consolidation which we are about
has been included in the bill, an extraordinarily important effort that
a bipartisan effort of the administration and the Congress has pursued.
These funds will go a long way in helping to relocate FDA employees
from their current substandard facilities into modern, state-of-the-art
facilities. The consolidation would bring to an end the practice of
extending costly leases for various FDA offices throughout the region.
We in fact will save money as a result of this.
On the other hand, I am deeply disappointed that the bill does not
provide any election reform grants. We have funded the commission. That
is appropriate. We had a press conference this morning with the
president of the National Association of Secretaries of State. One of
the most important things that remains left to do on election reform is
revising the statewide election system of recording registrants and
having those registrants available to each and every precinct. The
grants that are due under the authorization are not included in this
bill.
The administration, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, must show a stronger
commitment to election reform, including calling for more funding, if
this Nation is to avoid a repeat of the 2000 election debacle. We will
not do anything between now and November 2 with this money; but very
frankly the registration that we require in the bill be a statewide
system must be online
[[Page H7130]]
by January of 2006. That is a very brief period of time, some 14 months
from now.
{time} 1715
And if we do not fully fund the authorization, I fear the States will
not meet that deadline. We made a promise to the States that the
efforts to address the most serious deficiencies in their electoral
systems would not turn into another unfunded federal mandate. By
failing to fund fully the commitment of the authorization bill, we have
mandated something and we have not helped pay for it.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I remain concerned that the proposed funding for
tax law enforcement is insufficient to adequately enforce compliance
and make our tax system fair and efficient. I am also disappointed
there are no funds to reimburse small airports in the Washington region
for the losses incurred when the Federal Government shut them down. I
have had extensive discussions with the chairman on this issue. There
is some language in the bill that hopefully will make this a
conferencable item, but I will tell the chairman once again and I will
tell the chairman of the caucus it is ironic that small business people
who have invested and taken a risk in being entrepreneurs, as the
majority party says it supports, are left hanging in the wind by
governmental action and, through no fault of their own, none, zero,
find themselves one of the few people who have not been reimbursed for
the losses they have incurred. That is, I think, ironic and wrong.
While the bill recognizes that the Department of Transportation
should consider ways to reimburse general aviation, the failure to
provide funds will only leave small airports, specifically College
Park, Potomac, and Washington Executive, dangling on the brink of
financial ruin. We should do more for general aviation and small
business, what we did for the airlines, large airports, and the
insurance industry in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, help ease
the burden our actions have caused. Those actions were caused by
terrorists.
I urge the chairman to include funds for general aviation
reimbursement as we move forward to make fair restitution to the small
airports.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the failure to provide funds for DOT
headquarters is short-sighted, in my opinion, and leaves the Department
of Transportation headquartered in an aging building with an
infrastructure well beyond the end of its useful life. I urge the
chairman to correct this oversight, and we ought to look for the
resources to do that.
I appreciate the committee's hard work, and I hope we can make some
changes and make this a better bill. And I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, following on the comments of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I rise to express my disappointment that this
bill does not fully fund the amounts authorized in the Help America
Vote Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We were proud to pass, on the eve of the
2002 election, ground-breaking election reform legislation that
authorized almost $4 billion in Federal funding that would, among other
things, improve the administration of elections; provide for increased
accessibility to voting equipment and polling places for people with
physical disabilities; fund the replacement of obsolete voting
equipment; pay for protection and advocacy systems; provide for the
establishment of State-based administrative procedures to remedy
grievances, including grievances pertaining to accessibility; call for
the establishment of an Election Assistance Commission to serve as a
national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information
and review procedures with respect to the administration of Federal
elections; and to call for the establishment of a Standards Board, a
Board of Advisors and a Technical Guidelines Development Committee, all
of which would assist in the development of good voting systems.
Although over the past couple of years I have been primarily focused
on standards for voting systems, specifically the lack of meaningful
security standards for such systems, the Help America Vote Act funded
many important things. And considering how important it is to our
democracy to have fair, accessible, auditable elections and considering
how many doubts citizens have had about elections in recent years, I am
deeply disappointed that this appropriations bill provides so little
HAVA funding, only $15 million, a pittance on the amount yet to be
funded authorized under HAVA. Fifteen million dollars provided in this
bill, leaving unappropriated more than $700 million of HAVA's total $4
billion in authorized sums.
The absence of consistent funding for HAVA has caused a fundamental
problem; namely, that Federal funding of election systems outpaced the
critical need for implementation of meaningful security standards. The
Committee on Appropriations recognizes this. With respect to the $15
million appropriated for the Election Assistance Commission, $5 million
is specified ``to address the desperate need for research and
standardization of election systems.'' The committee urged the EAC to
``address standards and technology issues related to voting
equipment.'' That is their quote. But the committee does not provide
adequate funding. Forty million dollars was authorized to fund the
protection and advocacy systems to ensure full participation in the
election process for individuals with disabilities. Less than a third
of that amount has been appropriated. One hundred million dollars was
authorized to fund polling place accessibility and education and
outreach to disabled voters. Only about a third, less than a third of
that, has been appropriated. HAVA has called for the establishment of a
Help America Vote college program and Help America Vote high school
program. Each of those has received only about half of the authorized
amount. HAVA called for $3 billion in payments to States to help them
meet their audit trail, accessibility, language and other voting system
requirements, and we fall far short of the appropriations in that
category.
HAVA, I believe, will have to be amended. There are some improvements
that need to be made. But that is no excuse for not fully funding this
central part of the American democratic system to make sure that we
have fair, accessible, and auditable elections.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding me this time, and I recognize that there is a lot of hard
work that the chairman and the ranking member have done on this bill
and we are grateful for the bill despite its horrific shortcomings. The
subcommittee has worked hard.
Secretary Ridge was before the Select Committee on Homeland Security
today, and an issue came forward that I think simply must be discussed
during this debate. I said to the Secretary, whose hard work I very
much appreciate, how much it looked like we were fighting the last war.
The private sector, the business sector does not even have up on the
website of the Department of Homeland Security some guidance as to what
they should do, except that is where all the people are and that is
where all the revenue is raised in our country. And where the people
are in transportation, on rail, on public transportation, it is not
even on the radar when it comes to homeland security.
I have got an act that has a lot of cosponsors called the Safe
Transportation Act, and I have to tell my colleagues that terrorists
really do have an open field. Not in aviation anymore. We have shored
up some of that. But they have an open field in public transportation
and in rail. That is where the people of the United States spend their
time going to and from one part of the country and the other and one
city and the other. We have allocated about $14 billion for aviation
security, and we are sure we are doing the right thing there. I am on
the Subcommittee on Aviation. That was the right thing to do. There is
more still to be done there.
But even after Madrid, there is something approximating $300 million
for all of rail and public security. People go down into subways.
People get on buses. And there is almost a blank
[[Page H7131]]
slate there. There are 9 billion passenger trips annually on public
transportation. I first learned of this problem when Amtrak security
here in the Nation's capital came to see me, and I tell my colleagues
that my hair stood on end because Union Station is here, and he told me
what his work had been with transportation security, and he told me
that virtually nothing had been done here or in Penn Station or in
Philadelphia's 30th Street Station. Do not even let us get to the
tracks and the tunnels. Amtrak accounts for only 22,000 of U.S. rail
routes. There are 140,000, and sometimes they are a big company like
Amtrak. Most of the time they are much smaller.
We are living in the post-Madrid era, not the post-9/11 era. There
were 200 innocent civilians killed there, 1,500 injured. One-third of
terrorist attacks in the world target public transportation systems
because they are the easiest to get at. I sat in on a Subcommittee on
Railroads hearing a couple of months ago, and I was horrified. There
were two agencies there who are supposed to be responsible, the Federal
Railways Administration and the Department of Homeland Security
official. Nobody is in charge. There is no national security plan for
rail security, for subways, for buses. There is no assessment of our
rail security, of our public transportation security. And here we have
a transportation bill before us. Hey, not a word about it. It simply
has to be inserted into this debate. It is no way to run a railway, no
way to run a public transportation system. And we are in mortal danger
when we leave the major form of transportation used by Americans
hanging out there with $300 million while we have fought the last $14
billion war in the air. Let us begin to fight this war.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the help of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver)
in trying to expedite the time for the benefit of everyone.
Let me just make a couple of responses to things that a couple of
speakers mentioned on the Help America Vote Act. We have provided
federally something like a little bit over $3 billion in the last
couple of years to improve voting systems around the country. A billion
dollars of that remains unspent. The States are not prepared for us to
add more money on this bill or any other bill because they have got $1
billion that has not been spent yet. They are waiting on some voting
standards that are supposed to be coming from the Federal Commission,
which has not produced those standards yet. So I do not think it would
be responsible for us to take away from other urgent and pressing
priorities to put more money into an account that already has much more
money than it is able to spend. So I figured it was important to
mention that.
Let me, in closing, Mr. Chairman, repeat something I said before, and
I realize it is confusing to anyone that may be listening as well as to
Members. We will be having in this bill a number of parliamentary
tactics, points of order brought up. It is not because we on the
Committee on Appropriations have not produced a responsible piece of
legislation, trying to fund the most important priorities in
transportation and in the Federal agencies that are a part of this
bill. However, because the authorizing committee has not been able to
complete its work, it is overdue by over a year now, we have some
things that technically are unauthorized programs. It is unauthorized
for this Congress to provide Federal highway transportation dollars.
{time} 1730
Now, it is authorized to collect the gasoline tax that our citizens
and our constituents pay at the pump. They are paying the fuel tax, but
it is not authorized with that money to go back into the roads. That is
not right, so we went ahead and we provided that transportation
funding. We provided the highway funding and the transit funding and
the aviation funding, even though the authorizers say, Well, it is not
authorized.
So because of that, they are going to come to this floor, and people
are going to say: Well, strike out this part of the bill. Strike out
funding for highways. Strike out provisions, some of which spend money
and some of which, frankly, save money. We are going to have a messy
process.
But ultimately, when this committee produces the House-Senate
conference report, we are going to take care of those things that are
addressed in this. We will resolve the parliamentary problems because,
frankly, the points of order, the parliamentary points of order do not
lie against a conference report as they do against legislation in the
House.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to clarify on the point that the gentleman just made and
the example that you just used, that the authorization bill on T&I
highway programs has an extension. As of the moment, it is an extension
to September 24. If there is not a full bill, authorization bill that
has passed by then, there will be another extension into the next
fiscal year. And the irony is that we would then be operating within
the authorization of the extension into the next fiscal year in what we
would be doing.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is certainly correct.
Reclaiming my time, this Committee on Appropriations is doing its
work, whether the rest of Congress is able to for whatever reason
fulfill their work or not. I regret that this is going to be a messy
process. We are going to have some things stricken out of the bill. If
the things that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure want
stricken out of the bill are all out, we would be above our budget
allocation. We would be in violation of the rules of this House on the
amount of money that we have to spend. That is pretty bad when we have
a deficit already to make it worse.
We are not going to do that. We will make sure appropriate amendments
are offered and that this bill ultimately is within the amount of money
that has been allocated to our subcommittee. There may be some money
that has been shifted about to what essentially will be a holding
account, just to make sure that we reserve it, and we will resolve
those things in committee.
I realize it is confusing, Mr. Chairman, but I appreciate the trust
and patience of the Members of this body in resolving it.
I do, in final comment, want to make sure that I express my
appreciation for the people that work behind the scenes so hard and so
diligently to help us present this legislation: The chief clerk of our
subcommittee, Rich Efford; the staff members of the subcommittee,
Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, Dena Baron, Kristen Jones; and a member of
my staff who works on these issues, Kurt Conrad, as well as my chief of
staff, John Albaugh.
We are grateful because we, as Members of Congress, could not do our
work without the good support of these people.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and other Members for their
comments. I ask every Member to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I was ready to yield back the balance of my time, but I
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I just want to say that the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury
and Independent Agencies has done an outstanding job of bringing this
legislation before the House of Representatives, and it is during some
very difficult times with some constraints.
I am going to be here representing the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, raising some points of order, not to object to
specific actions the subcommittee has taken; I think they have been
well-intended on behalf of the appropriators, but to offer and preserve
some of the integrity of the authorization process on behalf of the
full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), myself, and
other subcommittee chairs.
So again, it is a process of give and take, but we do know the
constraints the gentleman has worked under, and we have to preserve the
integrity of our jurisdiction. And I think that is important in this
legislative process.
So I congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma and the staff on the
[[Page H7132]]
fine job they have done, and we will offer these in that light.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering funds an
important national security program. The Maritime Security Program
ensues that a fleet of privately owned, commercially viable and
militarily useful vessels are available to meet national defense and
other security requirements.
A critical new element of the MSP program as reauthorized in the
Department of Defense FY04 Authorization Act is the construction and
operation of militarily useful U.S.-flag product tankers, which are
essential for the carriage of jet fuel and other refined petroleum
products. To facilitate the construction of U.S.-flag tankers in
American shipyards for the MSP program, the FY04 Defense Authorization
Act created the National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Assistance
Program.
Implementation of this program has been underway for seven months,
with seven proposals submitted to the Maritime Administration (MARAD)
to construct tankers for the MSP program. Final proposals for the
program are due very shortly--on October 22, 2004--with awards
scheduled to occur in January 2005. However, a provision in the
Transportation Appropriations Bill--sec. 187--would bring this vital
program to a halt by prohibiting any funds from being expended by MARAD
to administer or ward any of the contracts under the new program.
On August 24, 2004, the U.S. Transportation Command, the Defense
Department's logistics arm, identified ``New Tank Vessels . . .
constructed in the United States after November 25, 2003, and capable
of carrying militarily useful petroleum products,'' as critical to the
new MSP fleet. I am concerned about the potential impact this section
187 prohibition would have on our Nation's military sealift at a time
when the support of our overseas troops is critical.
I intend to work with the Committee and Subcommittee in conference to
ensure that this key component of our military sealift is not
jeopardized, and I encourage my colleagues who share this concern to do
the same.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the Sanders Amendment.
The Sanders Amendment would ensure that the Treasury department not
use any of its funds to undermine the federal court decision in Cooper
v. IBM that held that cash balance conversions violate federal pension
and age discrimination law.
We've been here many times before.
In fact, this is the fourth time that the House is voting to protect
older workers' pensions under cash balance pension plan conversions.
The last 2 times the amendment passed by 308-121 and 258-160.
Instead of voting to prevent the Treasury department from undermining
workers' pensions, I wish we were voting on affirmative legislation to
set standards for cash balance plans.
This issue has been going on since 1999.
In 1999, IBM converted its pension plan to a cash balance plan.
Luckily, it's computer savvy workers quickly figured out that the
conversion would reduce their expected pensions.
The workers mobilized and got Congress to hold hearings.
The Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on approvals of
conversions in September 1999.
But then, the new Bush administration tried to issue regulations
lifting the moratorium and permit conversions without any worker
protections.
Immediately 218 members of Congress wrote to the President urging him
to revise the regulations and protect older workers.
Four times the House and Senate have voted to require Treasury to
withdraw its regulations and protect older workers.
Finally, this year, in 2004, the Bush administration relented and
withdrew the regulations. The administration even sent up a revised
legislative proposal that contained a modicum of older worker
protections though it did not go far enough to protect older workers.
But, still the issue is not resolved.
Either Congress or the courts must set standards for cash balance
plans and conversions to such plans.
The Republican Congress has done nothing on this issue for almost six
years.
If anything, Republican leaders would defer to employer lobbying and
simply permit cash balance conversions without any protections for
older workers.
That's why the Courts may have to be the body that resolves some of
these issues.
One court, the federal district court for the state of Illinois,
determined that conversions are illegal. Other courts have disagreed.
These cases and others still waiting to be heard will take years to
resolve.
This amendment makes clear that the Treasury department shall not
interfere in these cases.
Today worker pension security is in crisis.
This administration has done nothing to protect workers' pensions and
done everything to undermine them.
They didn't protect workers after Enron and WorldCom from employers
loading pension plans with employer stock and letting the executives
protect themselves while leaving the workers stuck with worthless
stock.
They didn't protect participants in 401(k) plans from a broad range
of mutual fund abuses that have decimated retirement nest eggs.
And they are not protecting workers now from rampant pension
underfunding. The PBGC, the agency that insures traditional pensions,
has a $10 billion deficit. And if the airlines go under, the deficit
will increase by another $30 billion. Over 1,000 pension plans are more
than $50 million underfunded. And workers don't even know because the
PBGC is required to keep the information secret.
The administration and the Republican majority are doing nothing to
protect worker pensions.
I urge my colleagues to vote once again and remind the majority that
it is the will of the Congress that older workers be protected in cash
balance pension plan conversions.
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 will 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 read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5025
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, 2005, 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,
$89,000,000, of which not to exceed $2,219,100 shall be
available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to
exceed $704,500 shall be available for the immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $15,394,300 shall be
available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to
exceed $12,639,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed
$8,572,900 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed $2,315,700
shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $23,435,700 shall be
available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration; not to exceed $1,928,700 shall be available
for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed $1,456,000
shall be available for the Office of the Executive
Secretariat; not to exceed $704,000 shall be available for
the Board of Contract Appeals; not to exceed $1,277,200 shall
be available for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization; not to exceed $2,052,900 for the Office
of Intelligence and Security; not to exceed $3,300,000 shall
be available for the Office of Emergency Transportation; and
not to exceed $13,000,000 shall be available for the Office
of the Chief Information Officer: 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,
$8,700,000.
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, $10,800,000.
[[Page H7133]]
working capital fund
Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays
of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed $125,000,000,
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, 2006: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C.
332, these funds may be used for business opportunities
related to any mode of transportation.
Payments to Air Carriers
(airport and airway trust fund)
In addition to funds made available from any other source
to carry out the essential air service program under 49
U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, $51,700,000, to be derived from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to remain available until
expended.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the phrase,
``to be derived from the airport and airway trust fund,'' beginning on
page 5, line 24 and ending on line 25. This provision violates clause 2
of rule XXI. It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes
legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the point of order, if I understand it
correctly, is made against a portion, rather than an entirety, of the
paragraph. I believe the House rules require the point of order must
lie against the entire paragraph and not just a portion thereof. I
believe the point of order is incorrectly offered accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order may be surgical. Does the gentleman
from Oklahoma wish to expand the point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. If the gentleman's point of order lies against the entire
paragraph, I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has made a point of order against a
portion of the paragraph. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma wish to
expand the point of order?
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we want to raise the point of
order against a phrase. Again, the point of order which we want to
raise against is the phrase, ``to be derived from the airport and
airway trust fund,'' beginning on page 5, line 24, and ending on line
25.
The CHAIRMAN. It is permissible to make a point of order against a
portion of the paragraph, but the gentleman from Oklahoma may expand
the point of order.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order lie
against the entire paragraph, that it be expanded against the entire
paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is against the entire paragraph.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, just to that point, I do not believe that the
gentleman would have the ability to expand. I thought that would be my
prerogative in this case.
The CHAIRMAN. Any Member may assert the point of order against the
entire paragraph.
The Chair will hear argument on the point of order.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, with it expanded to include the entire
paragraph, I must concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman concedes the point of order. The point of
order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of clarity, the Chair has
ruled to strike the entire paragraph?
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is against the entire paragraph, and
the entire paragraph is stricken.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to raise this, but there are
apparently different versions, different copies floating around, and I
would like to know, if I could, what is it that has now been stricken?
The CHAIRMAN. The paragraph beginning on page 5, line 20 through line
26.
Mr. OLVER. All right. I thank the Chair very much, because my
recollection was that one of the Members on the other side was reading
from a different section at one point, and the words did not correspond
to what is in that section, so I got a little confused.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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 108-176, $7,726,000,000, of which
$6,002,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $6,160,617,600 shall be
available for air traffic services activities; not to exceed
$916,894,000 shall be available for aviation regulation and
certification activities; not to exceed $224,039,000 shall be
available for research and acquisition activities; not to
exceed $11,674,000 shall be available for commercial space
transportation activities; not to exceed $50,624,000 shall be
available for financial services activities; not to exceed
$69,821,600 shall be available for human resources program
activities; not to exceed $149,569,800 shall be available for
region and center operations and regional coordination
activities; not to exceed $139,302,000 shall be available for
staff offices; and not to exceed $38,254,000 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 $7,000,000
shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing program:
Provided further, That funds may be used to enter into a
grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting
organization to assist in the development of aviation safety
standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available for new applicants for the second
career training program: Provided further, That none of the
funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay
under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration
employee unless such employee actually performed work during
the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or
expended to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station
in the contiguous United States: Provided further, That none
of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and
cartography are available for activities conducted by, or
coordinated through, the Working Capital Fund: 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 1,846: 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.
point of order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the phrase,
``of
[[Page H7134]]
which $6,002,000,000 shall be derived from the airport and airway trust
fund,'' beginning on page 6, line 13 and ending on line 14.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
First, I believe the point of order would properly lie against the
entire paragraph. However, in this case, and I want to make sure this
is agreeable with my counterpart, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica), I intend to offer an amendment after the sustaining of the point
of order to insert the language, ``of which $4.972 billion shall be
derived from the airport and airway trust fund,'' effectively
reinserting the stricken provision but changing the dollar figure from
$6.2 billion to $4.972, which I believe satisfies the parliamentary
requirements.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I have no
objection to that.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I will not ask that the
point of order be expanded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not permit a colloquy on this, but will
hear each gentleman in turn. Does the gentleman concede the point of
order?
Mr. ISTOOK. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the
language identified by the point of order is stricken from the bill.
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 of the bill, after ``$7,726,000,000,'' insert:
``of which $4,972,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund,''.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this simply changes the figure that comes
from the airport trust fund to satisfy the point of order that was
raised without doing further damage to this section of the bill. I ask
that it be adopted.
{time} 1745
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, we agree with that amendment and urge its
adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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, $2,500,000,000, of which
$2,056,300,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2007, and of which $443,700,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2005: 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 2006 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
2006 through 2010, 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 under
this heading, not less than $3,000,000 is for contract audit
services provided by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
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,
$117,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2007:
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)
rescission of contract authorization
(airport and airway trust fund)
For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid
for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility
planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of
chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49,
United States Code, and under other law authorizing such
obligations; for procurement, installation, and commissioning
of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at
airports of such title; for grants authorized under section
41743 of title 49, United States Code; and for inspection
activities and administration of airport safety programs,
including those related to airport operating certificates
under section 44706 of title 49, United States Code,
$3,200,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided,
That none of the funds under this heading shall be available
for the planning or execution of programs the obligations for
which are in excess of $3,993,000,000 in fiscal year 2005,
notwithstanding section 47117(g) of title 49, United States
Code: Provided further, That none of the funds under this
heading shall be available for the replacement of baggage
conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas,
or other airport improvements that are necessary to install
bulk explosive detection systems: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not more than
$69,302,000 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: Provided further, That of the funds made
available for the Small Community Air Service Development
Pilot Program, $4,000,000 shall be for airports which have
been discontinued from the Essential Air Service program
since January 1, 2001: Provided further, That of amounts
available in this or prior year Acts under 49 U.S.C. 48112
and 48103, as amended, $758,000,000 are rescinded.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 11,
line 13, beginning with in ``for grants,'' through page 11, line 18,
ending with ``United States Code.''
This provision violates clause 2 of Rule XXI. It provides an
appropriation not supported by authorization in violation of House
rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be
expanded to lie against the entire paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is expanded and is pending against
the entire paragraph.
Does any Member wish to be heard further on the point of order? If
not, the Chair will rule.
The provision proposes to appropriate certain funds in the bill.
Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be specifically
authorized by law. The burden of establishing the authorization in law
rests in this instance with the committee. Finding that this burden has
not been carried, the point of order is sustained and the paragraph is
stricken from the bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, how far would that strike through, to what
line and page?
The CHAIRMAN. It would strike the entire paragraph.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, through page 12, line 15?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
The Clerk will read.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the gentleman from New Hampshire
(Mr. Bass), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and Resident
Commissioner, the gentleman from Puerto
[[Page H7135]]
Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila) to discuss an issue that is critical to our
districts, air traffic control training programs.
As you know, the Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative, also
known as CTI, is a successful program that provides the Federal
Aviation Administration an educated pool of candidates to meet its air
traffic controller staffing needs.
I am proud to inform you that the University of North Dakota's air
traffic controller program is one of the 13 FAA approved and certified
CTI programs that graduates exemplary students ready for assignment
with the FAA.
As a strong supporter of the Air Traffic Collegiate Training
Initiative Program, I am concerned that the proposed report language in
fiscal year 2005 House, Transportation and Related Agencies
appropriation bill may effect the current role CTI programs play in the
Federal Aviation Administration's training process. Some may read this
report language as requiring all new air traffic controllers to receive
their initial training at the FAA Academy. I would appreciate the
chairman's confirmation that this proposed report directive does not
jeopardize the status of CTI programs as an integral part of the FAA's
training process.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for raising this
important issue. I welcome the opportunity to set record straight.
As you know, the fiscal year 2005 House Transportation Appropriations
bill provides the FAA with an additional $9 million for additional
hiring and training of air traffic controllers. This $9 million is
above the amount already budgeted by the FAA.
Our report does not specify how much has to go for salaries and how
much for training, but we can safely assume the majority will go for
salaries. Probably no more than $2 million to $4 million more of those
funds would be for the actual training.
The base budget for the FAA includes $47.5 million for controller
training. Our bill allows that money to be used at the discretion of
the FAA at the CTI programs, at the FAA Academy or elsewhere. Contrary
to inaccurate press report, this report language does not affect the
role of CTI programs as a vital source of air traffic control
candidates for the FAA. The language only directs that the portion of
the extra $9 million that is used for training is to be used at the FAA
Academy. But that leaves the overwhelming majority of training funds
that are in the base budget, $47.5 million, at the discretion of the
FAA, which can include the CTI programs at the same level as currently.
This report language does not affect the role that CTI programs play
in the training process of the FAA. There is nothing in this bill that
prevents CTI programs such as the one in the gentleman's district at
the University of North Dakota from continuing in the same level and
scope as they do currently.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that was a very
important clarification for us. I thank the gentleman for participating
in it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to briefly explain what is happening here with
these points of order that are being raised by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the subsequent points of order
that are being raised by the Committee on Appropriations.
The bill was finely tuned and very well crafted. The gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), of the subcommittee, did a really good job
bringing out a transportation bill. They could have used more money but
they had a certain amount available and they used it wisely. But when
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure raises their points
of order, and when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) concludes
raising these points of order, this bill will be at least a billion
dollars over its 302(b) allocation. And, of course, we have committed
ourselves, since I have been chairman of this committee, to staying
within our 302(a) allocation and the subcommittees to staying within
their 302(b) allocations.
So we are required to raise our own points of order to deal with
unauthorized projects that we had agreed to fund but that we will no
longer be able to fund, because the points of order raised by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will take us beyond our
302(b) allocation.
I explain that in advance because very shortly I will raise several
points of order that will bring the bill back into balance within the
302(b) allocation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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 375 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
2005.
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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Jefferson
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jefferson:
Page 13, strike lines 11 through 14.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered because the
provision is dated by some 3\1/2\ years. It has been carried over year
after year. It prohibits the use of engineering funds in the program
for engineering work related to an additional runway.
It raises an issue of concern on the part of our authority with
respect to planning. It was ostensibly placed in the bill, in the
legislation some years ago because of concerns about practices that a
prior administration that existed some 2 years ago now, which has been
replaced by a new aviation board, a new mayor, widely regarded as a
reforming regime, and is simply now in the way of appropriate planning.
There are issues of safety, issues of security, issues now even of
evacuation as we try and move people. It is very important our airport
be permitted to plan as it should. So this provision is dated and I
urge that it be stricken from the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I do want to speak against the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). This particular language has been
carried in this bill, I understand, for several years. The airport is
actually in the district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin),
who I understand is in the hospital currently, but he strongly desires
the provision to remain in the bill and not be stricken.
I am also advised that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter),
another of the Louisiana Members whose district adjoins the airport,
strongly supports keeping this provision in the bill.
Members should have the right, Mr. Chairman, to protect their
district. The runway would not, as I understand it, be in the district
of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), though I understand
his concern for his State and for the overall community. I do ask,
however, that the amendment be opposed, that it remain in the bill, and
that we respect the wishes of the Members who are most closely involved
and fully informed on this problem.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. JEFFERSON. I wish to inform the gentleman that the airport is in
the district that I represent. It is not in the gentleman from
Louisiana's (Mr. Tauzin) district or the gentleman from Louisiana's
(Mr. Vitter) district.
It may be that a part of the runway may stretch into the area but the
airport is in my district. It is not in the
[[Page H7136]]
district of the gentleman as you have so stated. So I want that
corrected.
We have a vital interest in this. It is the city's property. It is
the district's property that I represent and, really, we have the
greatest interest in the outcome here.
Mr. ISTOOK. I understand that. I appreciate the gentleman. I do not
want to be incorrect on any of these things.
It is obviously a project that affects a multiplicity of districts,
the way the boundaries are configured. I do ask that the language
remain in the bill.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
If I understand, Mr. Chairman, the argument that was used, the
reasoning that was used by the chairman and then the correction that
was made by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), it would
appear to me that using the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Mr. Istook)
argument, that this language should be stricken from the bill because
the area involved is in the district of the member from Louisiana (Mr.
Jefferson). So I would support the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Jefferson) in his position.
The CHAIRMAN. The question on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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. 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. 106. War Risk Insurance.--Title 49, United States
Code, is amended:
(a) In section 44302(f) by striking ``August 31, 2004, and
may extend through December 31, 2004,'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``December 31, 2005''.
(b) In section 44302(g)(1) by striking ``may provide'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``shall make available''.
(c) In section 44303(b) by--
(1) striking ``December 31, 2004'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``December 31, 2005.''
(2) striking the phrase ``may extend'' in the last sentence
of the subsection and inserting in lieu thereof ``shall
extend''.
Federal Highway Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the
Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $346,000,000,
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.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
For the reasons that I announced earlier I make a point of order on
page 14, line 21 to page 15, line 3, because it provides an
appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates
section 2(a) of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent
part, ``An appropriation may not be in order for an expenditure not
previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, this program is unauthorized and I insist on my point
of order.
____________________