[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.



                          ____________________