[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 89 (Wednesday, June 29, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5376-H5433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY,
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 342 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. 3058.
{time} 1129
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. 3058) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the
Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr.
McHugh 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 Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House the Fiscal Year
2006 Transportation, Treasury, HUD appropriations bill which was passed
out of committee via voice vote last week.
Before getting into the specifics of the bill, I want to commend the
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their tireless work to finish
these bills by the end of this week.
Here we are on June 29 marking up the final of the 11 spending bills.
I am sure that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) has been
saving best for last.
Mr. Chairman, I must acknowledge the role that my ranking member, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), played in assembling this
bill. I consider him a partner in creating the product before you
because his input has been invaluable. We have found common ground more
often than not, and what few differences remain are the result of
honest disagreement.
{time} 1130
He and I have had several conversations about almost every facet of
this bill. The staff has met repeatedly, and information has been
shared in a timely manner. I believe the bill is stronger because of
the input the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has provided.
I also want to mention, of course, the staff which has contributed
heavily and in mighty ways, extraordinary ways, to the completion of
this bill. My clerk, Dena Baron, Cheryle Tucker, David Gibbons, David
Napoliello, Steve Crane, Tammy Hughes, Kristen Jones; and on the
minority side, Mike Malone, the clerk, and Michelle Burkett. They have
done tremendous work.
As my colleagues know, this is the committee's first year with its
current jurisdiction, and I believe the product before us is worthy of
this body's
[[Page H5377]]
strong support. It is a fiscally responsible bill, funding high-
priority programs and eliminating Federal funds for other programs that
are duplicative or ineffective.
The bill before us is at our 302(b) allocation of $66.9 billion in BA
and provides total budgetary resources, including transportation
obligation limitations and mandatory spending, of $134.9 billion, an
increase of $7.2 billion over last year and $8.8 billion over the
request.
Let me be very clear here. These increases do not represent frivolous
spending by the committee. The increases over the budget request and
last year are due to House rules mandating certain funding levels for
highways, transit and aviation programs, House rules that we voted for.
We also retained CDBG in the bill and were able to fund it at a level
near last year's limit. As most of my colleagues know, the President
proposed eliminating that program, but the response was overwhelming to
keep it right here in HUD.
In transportation, we have met all of our guarantees for surface
transportation and safety, and aviation infrastructure as included in
TEA-LU and Vision-100. For FAA operations, we have provided funds for
595 new controllers, plus an additional $8 million over the request for
safety inspectors.
I realize there will be a lot of attention paid to Amtrak today. The
bill provides $550 million, $190 million more than was included in the
budget request, and $657 billion below last year's enacted level. To
that end, this bill prohibits Federal funds for any Amtrak route that
requires a subsidy of $30 or more per passenger, most of which, of
course, are long-distance routes. The 24 routes that require a Federal
subsidy of less than $30 per passenger will continue to receive Federal
aid, and those 24 routes account for more than 80 percent of Amtrak's
annual ridership. Let me just repeat that: The 24 routes that will
continue to receive the Federal subsidy make up more than 80 percent of
the ridership.
Specifically, the bill permits Amtrak to use Federal funds to support
operations for the following: All routes in the northeast corridor,
including spurs that run from New York City to Albany, from New Haven,
Connecticut, to Vermont, and from Portland, Maine, to Boston; routes
running through Pennsylvania; most corridor routes in the Midwest;
trains running from Portland, Oregon, to Vancouver; and corridor routes
in California.
I want to also be clear that it does not prohibit Amtrak from using
non-Federal resources to support other routes, nor does it mandate that
any routes be shut down or truncated. We need to make it clear that
Congress will no longer sanction the use of taxpayer dollars on such
extremely unprofitable routes.
From the very first time I picked up the subcommittees gavel, I knew
that Amtrak would be a major issue of contention. I came in with an
open mind and had no preconceived notions of an outcome. I instructed
staff to follow the facts wherever they may lead, and Mr. Chairman,
they have led us right here. The Amtrak proposal before the House is an
honest one and worthy of our support.
In the Department of the Treasury, we fully funded the budget request
for the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network. The Community Development Financial Institutions
program fund is funded at last year's level of $55 million.
The IRS is funded at a total of $10.5 billion, an increase of $313
million from last year and a decrease of $130 million from the request.
This funding level allows IRS to maintain the critical balance between
taxpayer services and enforcement activities. While the IRS requested
more funds for enforcement, the request relied on a Budget Enforcement
Act provision that our Committee on the Budget did not adopt in the
budget resolution.
Also included in Title II is an administrative provision that
prohibits the IRS from closing taxpayer assistance centers until IRS
submits a report outlining the impacts of the closures on taxpayer
compliance and consults with stakeholders.
The committee had two priorities to meet for HUD in 2006. First and
foremost was the protection of all extremely low-income families
currently receiving Section 8 and public housing rental assistance, and
to continue to restore facilities and rental assistance for low-income
individuals that are severely disabled or have HIV/AIDS, all of which
the administration proposed for major reductions. Failure to fully meet
this commitment would have resulted in thousands of families losing
their assistance and becoming homeless. To achieve this, the committee
added more than $2 billion over last year's funding level and more than
$700 million over the administration's proposals for these programs.
Our second priority is to retain and restore to the maximum extent
possible the formula funding for cities and towns across America
through the Community Development Block Grant. As my colleagues know,
the administration proposed to terminate this program, which was funded
at $4.7 billion last year, but we were able to restore formula funding
for CDBG to within 6 percent of the amounts provided in 2005.
To fund these high priorities, however, the committee had to do a
broad sweep of duplicative and lower-priority programs throughout the
Department, including boutique programs that have typically been funded
by reducing the amounts in the formula CDBG program. It is never easy
to stop funding a program once it gets started receiving Federal funds,
but we have to make these decisions in order to meet our main funding
objectives.
For the Judiciary, the bill provides sufficient funding to maintain
current services of the Federal Judiciary, including rent and personnel
increases. In addition, we fully fund the Judiciary's revised request
for court security.
For the District of Columbia, we provided the budget request for
Federal payments to the District, which includes tuition assistance,
court costs and school improvement. As for the District's local budget,
the bill appropriates the budget and financial plan by reference, and
carries many of the same general provisions of the past.
We funded HIDTA, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program at
$227 million. That is the same as last year, and it was $77 million
over the request. Other Executive Office of the President programs are
funded at the requested levels.
As for the General Provisions, we recommend no substantive changes to
the provisions carried in prior years.
All in all, after much hard work and discussion, I believe that we
have a balanced bill before us. No, we did not fund every program, but
we did fund the higher priorities under our jurisdiction that will
deliver the best results to the most people, and that is our
responsibility.
I would like to take a moment and talk about a few of the amendments
which may be before us today. This is a large bill with a rather vast
and disparate list of agencies under its title. When it comes to
dividing up the 302(b) allocation, we really have to do a balancing
act. Each agency has a responsibility to the citizens of this Nation
and each has a role to play.
GSA has the responsibility for being the Federal landlord, for every
citizen receiving Social Security or needing a passport or a visa, for
every veteran needing his claim adjudicated, for every neighborhood
waiting on an economic development grant, every citizen seeking justice
in a Federal courtroom, or relying on the Department of Homeland
Security to keep our borders safe. GSA provides those buildings to do
its work, and the public, of course, to find the government. To view
the Federal Buildings Fund as a bottomless offset for ``program''
spending is dishonest to the programs we propose to fund.
I do have an amendment to offer with the gentleman from
Massachusetts, my friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee, that
takes money from an unidentified project in GSA and moves it to CDBG
for Youthbuild and tax law enforcement.
Other than that one amendment, I think it is a good bill. I urge its
adoption quickly so we can move to other urgent business.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H5378]]
Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to congratulate the gentleman from
California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking
Member Obey) for managing to get us here before the end of June to the
final bill. And with any luck at all, we will actually finish this
final bill before the end of June.
For the second year in a row, last year as the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies, and this year now as
the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, House and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies, this has been the last subcommittee to report. The
reorganization does not seem to make much difference. We are still the
last subcommittee to report to the floor, and I do not know what else
can be said or inferred from that except that the best has been left
for last.
First, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman
Knollenberg) for the positive and constructive relationship that we
have forged thus far in this expanded and reorganized subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg)
put the bill together, he listened to both majority and minority
Members, the concerns that they might have, and worked to resolve a
good many issues. That cooperative approach was not limited to
subcommittees or even subcommittee members or even to full Committee on
Appropriations members. He considered all Members concerned, and where
he was able to help, he did that, even to the last 12 hours, as he has
indicated in his remarks, the amendment that will be offered early on
in the process, and I thank him for that.
I particularly want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman
Knollenberg) for his mark in regards to his thoughtful approach to our
capital city's budget which is embodied in this bill.
I also want to take a moment to thank the excellent staff on both
sides of the aisle for their hard work on this legislation. On the
minority side, Mike Malone, Michelle Burkett, Matt Washington, Kathleen
Harris on my staff, and Shalanda Young.
On the majority side, Dena Baron, the majority clerk, Cheryle Tucker,
Steve Crane, Dave Gibbons, Tammy Hughes, David Napolielo and Kristen
Jones.
This bill has become more complex than I think any of us realized it
would, and I appreciate the efforts and the long hours of each and
every one of those staff members.
Mr. Chairman, every dollar of budget authority allowed in the
severely inadequate allocation where a subcommittee has been used, were
I in charge of the distribution of that allocation, it would be
different. However, there would be still the same volume of holes. So I
stipulate that this inadequate allocation created problems.
On the one hand, I am very pleased to see significant increases for
transportation funding because transportation investments are critical
for a healthy, growing economy for our growing and shifting population.
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration funding is 13.5
percent above the President's request at $14.427 billion. The Federal
Transit Administration is 9 percent above the President's request at
$8.482 billion. Federal Highway Administration's allotment here is 4.5
percent above the President's request at $37.026 billion. Mr. Chairman,
even the Federal Railroad Administration is 32 percent above the
President's request at $732 million. Mr. Chairman, as we can see, these
are good levels for transportation funding.
On the other hand, I am very concerned about the impact that meeting
the House TEA-LU levels was having on other agencies and accounts in
the bill.
In Title I, the transportation title, Federal aviation, Federal
highway, Federal transit are funded substantially above the fiscal year
2005 enacted level and way above the President's request for 2006.
{time} 1145
That is driven by current authorization on FAA and the anticipated
authorization, which we all fervently pray for within the next month or
so of Federal highway and Federal transit through the TEA-LU bill.
The lone exception to adequate funding is Amtrak. The chairman uses
an extremely blunt instrument on Amtrak, somewhat like the proverbial
2-by-4 between the mule's eyes. The bill terminates all Federal subsidy
on 18 long-distance lines, which are the most heavily subsidized lines,
thereby terminating the very concept of a national passenger rail
system. Those 18 lines carry roughly 20 percent of Amtrak's passengers
and provide the only passenger rail service in 23 States, represented
by a lot of Members of the House and, incidentally, by 46 Members of
the other body.
The shutting down of those lines would incur $300 million in labor
and contractual costs in fiscal year 2006 alone. That $300 million,
plus $275 million in mandatory debt servicing, plus $130 million of
Federal subsidy to keep the remaining 24 inner-city lines operating is
already $150 million above the $550 million provided in the bill, and
that is before any allocation for capital improvements on the
deteriorating northeast corridor trackage, wholly owned by Amtrak and
carrying 50 percent of all Amtrak passengers.
Mr. Chairman, if this body funds Amtrak at $550 million, it should be
no surprise if there is no passenger rail service this time next year.
And there will be one or more amendments offered to address that
problem.
Mr. Chairman, there remain holes in title III, the HUD title. Section
8 and public housing accounts are relatively well funded, but there are
substantial reductions from 2005 enacted levels in the community
development accounts, and that is largely because the committee wisely
rejected the proposal by the President to move almost all of the
community development accounts into a different department and a
different piece of legislation. And in rejecting and bringing back that
material, which has always been the material of the community
development portion of housing and community development, the funding
ended up not being high enough to be anywhere close to enacted levels
from last year.
As examples, the CDBG formula grants, which go to virtually all of
our communities around the country, are down below the 2005-enacted
level by 6 percent, and the HOPE VI and Brownfields Development are
defunded, defunded, just as examples. The YouthBuild program, which is
operated successfully in so many districts, is not yet funded.
So, Mr. Chairman, our bill has some shortfalls. These shortfalls
should not be allowed to remain in this bill as it becomes law.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the vice chair of the subcommittee.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong, strong support of this very important bill.
It is important in so many ways because it meets so many of the needs
of our Nation, and it represents every year one of the significant
milestones of the session. It represents that more so this year than
almost any other.
And in saying that, I want to recognize the full committee chairman,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and congratulate them on what I
think is not a small point, and that is that we will, as of the passing
of this bill, have completed the work of the Committee on
Appropriations initially here in this body.
That is important to the American people because it ensures for them,
in an organized and reasonable manner, some transparency in order for
us to really understand what the priorities are going to be. And as we
go forward and focus more in conference and have discussions and
debates with the other body about what the funding priorities are to
be, the fact that we have gotten our work out of the way at this
juncture is very important.
Secondly, I want to specifically recognize the chairman of the full
committee for fulfilling a commitment to the American people to do
something about the deficit. This appropriation process recognizes that
we needed to symbolically, and maybe otherwise, make real commitments
to ourselves and to the people of this Nation to reduce our spending
habits. And in this
[[Page H5379]]
process we have made that strong statement, or will have made that
strong statement in the body.
Now, I also want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and my neighbor, the
ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their
work on this bill and the staffs of the committee for the great work
they have done on this bill. This particular bill represented a unique
challenge because for the first time the bill includes funding for
highway transit, aviation and Amtrak, as well as the Department of the
Treasury, IRS enforcement, and Housing and Urban Development. In
addition, the bill also provides funding for the District of Columbia.
The needs of all of these competing programs are staggering, and the
chairman and the ranking member really have done a noble job, as well
as the staffs on both sides of the aisle having done a really noble job
of trying to listen to the needs of all Members.
Let us talk about what this bill accomplishes. The bill increases
highway spending and funding for the FAA to help make our roads and
skies safer. I am especially pleased at the commitment in this bill for
airport improvement, $3.6 billion and $104 million for essential air
services. I come from the 32nd largest rural district in the Nation.
This is a key, key component. The bill also includes funding to hire
and train 595 new air traffic controllers. I hope to avert some
potential problems that we may have in that human resources area.
In terms of housing needs, the bill provides funding for section 8
vouchers and project-based rental assistance. Importantly, this bill
rejects an administration proposal to undermine the Community
Development Block Grant, CDBG, program. CDBG is critical to our local
communities, and this bill preserves the program in its current state.
I also want to highlight the contributions this bill makes in the war
against drugs by providing funding to the Office of National Drug
Control Policy and the National Antidrug Media Campaign. The work
achieved by the Media Campaign, in conjunction with the Partnership for
a Drug-Free America, is incredible and greatly contributes to our
efforts to keep kids from experimenting with drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for allowing me to
speak. This bill is not perfect. No bill ever is. No appropriation bill
ever is. It moves the process along. In putting this bill together, I
know the chairman faced a $3 billion shortage in transportation
guarantees and overall a $1 billion shortage with the inclusion of all
these additional programs. The gentleman has met that challenge in
fulfilling some basic structural needs to move it along, and he has met
many other needs; and I wanted to congratulate the chairman.
On Amtrak, let me say this. I recognize there are negotiations and
decisions to be made. We need to move it further. We need to begin the
process of reforming Amtrak. We need to get realistic, or more
realistic, about what that Federal subsidy needs to be. But in this
bill the fact that the chairman has targeted 80 percent of ridership is
a pretty good foundation piece, and I really respect the decisions the
chairman had to make and how he made them.
For my constituents, and those of us on the lines that are most
dependent upon Amtrak use, this bill ensures, as these negotiations go
forward, that the essential services we need will be maintained. But
that is not good enough, Mr. Chairman. We have to make sure that in
going forward, we are able to bring about changes and reforms in
Amtrak, changes that have been talked about for more than a decade.
And to Mr. Gunn at Amtrak, and those people who run Amtrak, as one
who has worked with him in the past, I am deeply, deeply disappointed
in their failure thus far, frankly, of bringing about meaningful
proposals, other than asking for more money. It puts those of us who
are Amtrak allies in a distinctly disadvantaged position. Because other
than fighting over money, we do not ensure any strengthening of the
system, or any increase in the vibrancy of the system.
I am going to vote for and support this bill. I probably will end up
supporting some other amendments that will help move the Amtrak debates
further along. But we cannot get to the point that we need to unless
the people who are running the system get more interactive with us and
propose more of the changes that we need in order to finally resolve
the longstanding problems of that system.
Again, Mr. Chairman, our chairman has done a noble and terrific job.
His staff has as well, as has the staff of the other side. And the
leadership on the other side, I want to congratulate them for that and
vow that we will continue to work together to make improvements where
we can.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and let me simply say that I appreciate the fact that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has tried to do everything in
his power to make this bill as acceptable as possible, given the
circumstances. So I do not object to what he has done, but I do object
to the circumstances.
I would simply say that the problem is that Chairman Knollenberg has
not been given the tools necessary to make this a desirable bill. It is
sort of like giving a surgeon a spoon and telling him to go ahead and
perform surgery. He needs more than that in order to get the job done.
This bill, I think, is an important failure in terms of our
obligation to meet a number of national needs. As has been mentioned
previously, we have a number of important HUD programs which are
crunched and zeroed out. Brownfields, for instance. My community has
had some wonderful successes in cleaning up polluted areas through the
use of that program. That program, if this bill has its way, would be
gone. We have other problems in the housing area which have already
been discussed.
Amtrak. As my friends in this House know, I often quote my favorite
philosopher, Archie the Cockroach. Archie said once: ``Did you ever
notice when a politician does get an idea, he gets it all wrong?'' And
I would say that this budget for Amtrak gets it all wrong.
Amtrak, frankly, does not impact my district to any significant
degree, but the fact is it is an important national resource which
should not be scuttled like it is an old World War I battleship. The
fact is that it provides an important national service, and we ought to
be able to preserve a national passenger rail system.
The idea that is wrong is the idea that somehow we ought to require
passenger rail service in this country to show a profit. We do not
require airlines to do that. The Federal Government pumps a lot of
money into the budget in order to provide service to hard-to-serve
areas in the country as far as air travel is concerned, and we need to
treat rail transportation the same way.
We would not have a Federal highway system if we only built the
routes that ``paid for themselves.'' Most of rural America would be
flat out of luck, especially the West, when it comes to highways, if we
applied the same logic to highway construction that the House is trying
to apply to railway transportation in this bill.
{time} 1200
Another shortcoming, in my view, is the fact that it provides a $250
million reduction to the Community Development Block Grant. I do not
represent a city over 40,000 in my entire district, but those small-
town mayors that I represent make terrific use of the money in this
program in order to revitalize neighborhoods in ways that they
otherwise would never be able to do.
I would also say, and this is no particular fault of the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) either, but this bill represents the
last chance that we have to do something about the fact that the
administration for 2 years has kept the truth from Congress about the
needs of the veterans health care system in this country.
We have been trying for 2 years to get more money into the VA for
veterans health care. We have steadily been told by the administration,
No, no, no, the budget is fully adequate, we do not need any more
money. Now we know it has all been baloney.
[[Page H5380]]
Yesterday, the administration finally broke down and admitted that
they are more than a billion dollars short for this year, and for the
coming year, they will be $2.6 billion short. We have an obligation to
do something about it. The Senate did something yesterday on the
Interior bill. The Senate added $1.4 billion as an emergency
appropriation to deal with what is an emergency situation in the
veterans health care agency.
This is the last appropriation bill that is going to go through here
on a regular basis, and because we were not allowed to offer this
amendment on the subcommittee bill where it should have been offered,
we have no choice but to try to get it offered to this bill, unless
this House wants to sit, as FDR used to say, ``frozen in the ice of its
own indifference.'' I would hope we would not do that and would respond
to the challenge at hand.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill. I commend the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for presenting a fair bill.
It provides for critical transportation and housing needs of our
country, as well as funding for the Federal Judiciary and the District
of Columbia. In the interest of time, I am just going to summarize my
remarks.
I think one of the key elements to a strong economy in a Nation is an
interstate highway system so we can move goods and people. I often
think how wise President Eisenhower was when he started the interstate
system. We cannot imagine the United States without the interstate
system. So this bill, under the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg), really focuses on transportation, and that is a key
element of the Nation's economy. It is a key element of providing
quality of life and jobs for people.
In addition to the Federal system, this bill provides $37 billion for
public roads, bridges and so on that deal with the safety issues. There
is over $14 billion to the FAA because, again, safety in our airports,
safety in facilities to expand the aviation capability of the United
States. Along with that is the money for the air traffic controllers.
Again, there is a need for a growing number. Many air traffic
controllers will be retiring, and this bill addresses that by making
investments in new hiring and training for almost 600 new air traffic
controllers. I think we forget when we are up in the sky in an
airplane; we assume safety. But we are dependent on the air traffic
controllers to ensure that.
Housing needs, again an essential part of the quality of life in a
country. This bill addresses the section 8 programs.
I would particularly commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) for restoring funding to the community development fund.
This gives the local communities an opportunity to meet the needs and
requirements of their people. I think it is a great way of involving
local government and the people who know what the needs of their
community would be to ensure that there is a quality of life.
Lastly, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program is part of
the National Drug Control Policy. We do a lot of drug control programs
in the Labor-HHS bill, but this is also an important part of that. This
is critical in the State of Ohio for the HIDTA program. It is critical
for local communities as well as Federal responsibilities.
For all of these reasons and many more, and the qualities of this
bill, I urge my colleagues to support this important funding measure.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Transportation,
Treasury, HUD Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006. As a member of
the Subcommittee, I commend Chairman Knollenberg for presenting a fair
bill that provides for the critical transportation and housing needs of
our country, as well as funding for the Federal Judiciary and the
District of Columbia.
I would like to highlight several issues that make this a good bill
that deserves the support of this House.
First, a strong interstate highway system is essential for a growing
and healthy economy. I am pleased the bill increased funding to
Federal-aid highways to $37 billion to construct and improve our
Nation's highways, public roads and bridges.
This represents an increase of nearly $2 billion from last year's
enacted level. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) partners with
States to assist in financing the construction and preservation of
nearly 1 million miles of highways and other key routes, connecting
cities and towns across the country.
The bill also provides over $14 billion to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA); nearly 900 million over last year's level. This
important funding supports the operations of a 24-hour a day national
air traffic system and a continued commitment to safety and efficiency
in our Nation's airways. I support the Chairman's increases of funding
for the Airport Improvement Program to $3.6 billion and for the
Essential Air Service program to $104 million. These important programs
assist public use airports with costs of capital improvements and
ensure that people living in small communities and rural areas have
access to air service.
Air traffic controllers have the tremendous responsibility of
providing for safety and security of our Nation's airways. With the
expectation that 73 percent of controller work force will be eligible
to retire over the next 10 years, I am pleased the committee directed
$25 million in responsible investments to hire and train 595 new air
traffic controllers.
Addressing housing needs, the bill includes $15.5 billion in funding
for the Section 8 housing vouchers. This funding level represents a
$765 million increase over last year and allows for the renewal of all
existing tenant-based vouchers. The bill assumes completion of the
transition from a ``unit-based'' to a ``budget-based'' system so that
Public Housing Authorities will now have a set amount of funding to
work with each year. Recognizing that numerous Public Housing
Authorities were adversely affected by the three-month snap shot period
used last year to set the budget totals, the bill provides $45 million
to restore vouchers to those areas that need it most.
Section 8 housing vouchers are the safety net needed to help many low
income working people provide a safe and secure home for their
families.
I would like to commend Chairman Knollenberg for restoring funding
for the Community Development Fund to a level of $4.151 billion and
maintaining this community development program in the Department of
Housing and Urban Development where it can best serve our local
community needs. This critical program provides local governments with
flexible funds, allowing them to address specific needs existing within
their communities.
I would also like to note that this bill maintains funding for the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (HIDTA) within the Office
of National Drug Control Policy and does not move the program to the
Justice Department. The bill provides $227 million to fully fund the
existing HIDTAs and allows some expansion where needed.
This program is critical in the State of Ohio to allow local, State
and Federal law enforcement agencies to coordinate and work together to
reduce drug trafficking in the State.
With that I urge my colleagues to support this important funding
measure.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
irresponsible funding level of Amtrak in this bill. The funding level
in this bill will kill Amtrak service. Among the 15 long-distance
routes that will be eliminated is the Cardinal train, which connects my
hometown of Indianapolis to Chicago and to New York City, serves over
88,000 passengers each year.
Also slated for elimination is Amtrak's Hoosier State train which
connects my constituents to Chicago, serving about 18,000 passengers.
In all, 100,000 Indiana passengers would be stranded without rail
service. Over 1,000 Hoosier jobs will be threatened, including the 640
workers of Amtrak's Beech Grove heavy maintenance facility in my
district.
This funding level is irresponsible. All transportation is subsidized
by the government. When the airlines are in trouble, my colleagues do
not hesitate to jump to their aid. Since Amtrak's creation, the
Congress has subsidized air and highway transportation over $1.89
trillion. That is 63 times what we would have spent on Amtrak.
Let us not forget, it was Amtrak trains that brought stranded
Americans home in the aftermath of September 11. I commend the
gentleman
[[Page H5381]]
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for bringing to the floor the amendment today
that would raise Amtrak funding to $1.2 billion.
In closing, let me remind my colleagues, there is not a rail service
anywhere in the world that is not subsidized by the government. It is a
service to consumers and should be maintained. I would appreciate
unilateral, universal support of the amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and thank him for his support of the Community Development Block
Grant program and for working so hard to find funds for CDBG in this
bill. As the appropriation process continues and the bill moves to
conference, will the chairman continue to work to find additional funds
to offset the reduction in the CDBG for fiscal year 2006?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Turner) for working with me on CDBG and for his efforts to help fund
this program.
Restoring the funds for CDBG was our highest priority after funding
assistance for the neediest families in our society. Funding for CDBG
remains one of our highest priorities, and I will do everything to
return the program as close to the 2005 enacted level as possible.
That was my intent during the development of this bill, and it
remains my intent as we continue to final passage of this appropriation
act for 2006.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) for his response, and I look forward to working with him
on CDBG. I appreciate the success that he has accomplished on this
bill.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on
Financial Services.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I invite Members to return
with me to the thrilling days of the Reverse Houdini. That is what we
are seeing today on the floor.
Older Members will remember Harry Houdini who had an act. His act was
to have other people tie him in knots and then appear before the public
and get out of the knots.
What my Republican colleagues will show you today, as they did in the
Labor-HHS bill and other bills, is the Reverse Houdini. Under the
Reverse Houdini, you tie yourself in knots. Then you appear before the
public and tell them how much you wish you could help them, but you
cannot because you are all tied up in knots. You do not mention that
you tied the knots.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), in his capacity as
chairman of the subcommittee, has done work which I admire and for
which I am grateful. He rejected the shortsighted and thoughtless
efforts by the administration to gut the CDBG program and to rearrange
the section 8 program. And I admire and appreciate what they did. So
given the very limited, indeed inadequate, resources with which the
gentleman had to work, he did a very good job.
On the other hand, I must say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) and others on the other side, I admire what you did with
inadequate resources, but I do not admire that you are the ones who
made the resources inadequate. Members who voted for the tax cuts do
not come to the floor with clean hands when they talk about the
consequences of the tax cuts.
We will hear today, as we heard on the bill dealing with Labor, Heath
and Human Services and Education, laments. The gentleman said he wished
he could do more for CDBG. Well, who is stopping him? What is stopping
him is the budget he voted for. The budget he voted for was dictated by
the tax cuts he voted for.
The President said last night that the war in Iraq will go on and on.
He will not waver. No, he will not waver. Funding for all these
important programs will waver. A month in the war in Iraq would have
been more than enough to make unnecessary all of the apologies we will
hear. We will hear the Reverse Houdini again and again and again.
Members of the Committee on Appropriations will come, and they will
accurately say that, given the resources they were provided, they
cannot adequately fund all of these programs. But we ought to make
clear, it is their own decision that led to these inadequate decisions.
In the housing area where I have some involvement and jurisdiction,
virtually no program is adequately funded. They did better than the
administration would have had them do, and I appreciate that important
programs like Youthbuild are going to be resuscitated from having been
snuffed out; but we will still have too little in CDBG, the Community
Development Block Grant program.
The CDBG is an excellent program, and we are being told, maybe, if we
are lucky, we will get it back up to where it has been, in an era of
massive tax cuts for the wealthiest and an ongoing war in Iraq.
Community development will be going on much better in Mosul and Baghdad
than it will be in Pittsburgh and Chicago. I do not mean to deny the
needs of people there, but we should not have it come at the expense of
people here.
The section 8 program is better, but it will still not be enough. Let
us also note that public housing, the entity that houses some of the
poorest people in this country, will again not get what it ought to
get. I would urge my colleagues, let us stop coming to the floor and
apologizing for the consequences of your own actions. Let Harry Houdini
rest in peace.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I note the committee's strong support for
parallel electric hybrid buses. I agree, we must encourage the use of
low-emission technologies as a way to reduce air pollution from our
Nation's bus fleet.
I would like to point out that series-type hybrid systems, although
they operate differently from parallel systems, strive to meet the same
goals. Regardless of their operating systems, I believe there is value
in these technologies and hope the chairman will join me in encouraging
their use. I would welcome any comments the Chair might care to make.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a very important
issue. I acknowledge that series-type hybrid systems have the same
goals and encourage the Federal Transit Administration to increase the
procurement of buses utilizing both types of systems.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our capital city.
{time} 1215
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), ranking
member, and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for
their work on a bill that happens to include the District of Columbia
in this new consolidated appropriation. The chairman and the ranking
member are making their debut, and I want to congratulate them on being
in on time on one of the most complicated bills because it has many
unrelated issues, and yet they have worked very collegially together.
I want to speak only briefly to three items. The least important part
of the bill for every Member but me is the District of Columbia
section. I appreciate the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg), who was once
Chair, both of whom worked with the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) as a
recent past Chair, for the way they have worked with the
[[Page H5382]]
Committee on Rules to give us a rule that will just let this bill pass
through as the least important part of what they are doing here today.
I particularly respect the self-government respect they have shown to
our city. The Mayor and the police chief were here yesterday. There
will be a point of order regarding a matter on gun safety, and I think
that that should simply take care of it.
On CDBG I was very pleased to hear the gentleman from Michigan
(Chairman Knollenberg) say he was trying to do what he can, because it
must be hard to find a Member in this body who is not with us on this
program, which has been so productive for large and small cities alone.
All we see around us in the new economic development in the District of
Columbia has been aided by the CDBG.
Amtrak is before us. It is perhaps the most controversial part of
this bill. I am supporting the amendment to add funds and have myself,
out of one of our authorizing bills, contributed funds out of one of
our appropriations. That is just how important it is to me. But not
just important to me, of course. Union Station is the second busiest
behind New York. But what is important to Members of this House is the
500 stations and the 46 States that would essentially be left with the
present level of funding with no Amtrak.
I ask Members to remember that no country in the world is able to run
a railroad privately. This claptrap about the private sector and the
States, I draw to their attention the only reason we have Amtrak at all
is that in 1970 the private sector came and literally dumped it on the
Congress, saying, We cannot run this; we lose too much money.
Railroads are first and foremost the responsibility of great nations.
This is our responsibility. We cannot just hand it back to them. They
cannot do it. If we cannot do it with a profit, why in the world do we
think that the States, which are running to us screaming about Medicaid
and other unfunded mandates, can do it?
I thank the gentlemen for all their work on this bill.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
I would like to ask the gentleman to address in conference the
Federal Transit Administration's ``accounting problem'' that has been
created by the current law treatment that split-funds each Federal
transit program 80 percent from the Mass Transit Account of the highway
trust fund and 20 percent from the general fund.
Because of Office of Management and Budget accounting rules regarding
the treatment of split-funded programs, every FTA program is spending
down much faster than the actual outlays of these programs. In H.R. 3,
or TEA-LU, we fix this accounting problem by funding each transit
program wholly from either the trust fund or from the general fund,
while maintaining the agency's overall 80/20 split between the Mass
Transit account and the general fund. Making this structural and
funding source change will allow FTA programs to outlay at their actual
programmatic rates.
I ask the gentleman to work in conference to make this change, as it
will have no scoring impact on the appropriations bill. If we do not
make this change now, in the budget year 2006 cycle, the Mass Transit
account of the highway trust fund will have a negative cash flow by
fiscal year 2007. If the appropriations bill does follow the program
structure change in the TEA-LU authorization, the balances of the Mass
Transit account will be stabilized and, in fact, will grow over the
next few years because the trust fund will be spending out at the
actual programmatic outlay rate.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the accounting problem
that split-funding the Federal Transit Administration program has
created. I will work on this issue in conference and trust that there
will be a long-term authorization in place by the time the House
Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Appropriations Committee
convene a conference.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his response.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of providing sufficient
funding for Amtrak so as to preserve Amtrak's incomparable service. It
is a vital engine of America's economy, particularly for those of us
living on the northeast corridor. As an Amtrak rider myself, I strongly
support preserving this safe, reliable, and cost-effective way for
America's commuters and families to travel throughout the country. This
bill would deny them that option, an approach that flies in the face of
common sense and even the President's stated goals of growing the
economy.
The events of September 11, 2001, proved America relies on rail, and
Amtrak in particular. As planes sat grounded everywhere, goods,
services, and people continued to move, thanks in large part to Amtrak.
This bill says that when it comes to passenger rail, we have not
learned enough from that day. Abandoning Amtrak would discard a system
that we have never fully funded or given the chance to operate at full
capacity. We rank a lowly 25th on the list of countries that provide
commuter rail funds, behind countries like Estonia, Belgium, and
Slovenia. Amtrak deserves better than that.
We move 850,000 commuters a day on Amtrak, and they rely on it to get
to and from work. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to preserve
Amtrak as an affordable option for America's families well into the
future.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver), ranking member, for the hard work they have done under
this bill under very tight budget restraints.
I think that this is a good piece of legislation, although I do have
some concerns about cuts in particular programs.
HOPE VI; the Empowerment Zone program; the Community Development Loan
Guarantees; the HUD Brownfields program, a program close to my heart,
which provides a second chance for reuse to many old industrial
properties, all of which have been contaminated, we want to get them
back on the tax rolls.
But perhaps most surprisingly the YouthBuild program, which provides
a crucial second chance for a good life to thousands of disadvantaged
young people in our Nation's urban communities, has been zeroed out in
the legislation that we are debating today.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to describe to my colleagues today what I
have learned about the tremendous success of YouthBuild in my years as
mayor of the city of Paterson, New Jersey. In the work I have done with
YouthBuild participants, I have heard scores of inspiring accounts from
young kids who spent their lives struggling with poverty, dysfunctional
or absent families, drug addiction and other forms of neglect and
abuse. And be rest assured this program is not a handout. Through the
challenging concrete task of building houses for the homeless, getting
their hands dirty with demanding physical labor, these kids have been
given the tools to begin to rebuild their own lives.
This is a model program that both sides of the aisle should
enthusiastically support, a program that helps young people gain the
self-esteem, self-reliance that come with a hard day's work in the
service of another human being.
According to a recent study, an astounding 65 percent of the
YouthBuild graduates say that they now expect to live an average of 32
years longer after YouthBuild experience than they expected to live
before. Self-esteem is not the only thing that is raised through this
program. Income potential and educational achievement have also soared.
Seventy percent of YouthBuild graduates are either in post-secondary
education or in jobs averaging $10 per hour.
[[Page H5383]]
This program is unquestionably a winner for young people across our
Nation. YouthBuild develops job skills, leadership potential, civic
involvement, and creates a community of adults and youth committed to
helping each other achieve success in life. And through the
construction of affordable housing, it contributes to the
revitalization of our poorest neighborhoods.
It is hard to believe that a compassionate President and a Congress
would want to wipe out any of these programs which epitomize our oldest
and most sacred American values: hard work, self-reliance, and
limitless optimism about the future.
I urge the House to find ways to increase funding for the valuable
community revitalization initiatives that have been cut from this
legislation.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with
the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the subcommittee, on the
issue of flight attendant fatigue.
Mr. Chairman, 144 of our colleagues and I recently requested funding
in the fiscal year 2006 Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill
to continue studying the growing problem of flight attendant fatigue
caused by work schedules that in some cases may provide as little as 5
hours for actual sleep. Sleep experts consistently warn that working
long hours with little rest can impair a crew member's decision-making
abilities and performance of critical safety duties.
As the chairman knows, the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute, or
CAMI, is currently completing a study on flight attendant fatigue.
While the Congress looks forward to the results of CAMI's study, 145
Members of Congress believe that CAMI may not have either the resources
nor the time to complete a truly comprehensive study and that
additional funding is necessary to study this life-threatening issue.
Accordingly, I ask the chairman's assistance in expediting the
overdue CAMI study and ask him to consider the findings of that report.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we had
included funding in last year's bill to study flight attendant fatigue.
I understand the study was due to Congress on June 1, 2005, and I will
be happy to work with the gentleman from California to determine the
status of CAMI's current study and expedite its completion, if
possible.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for
his willingness to work with me on this issue.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to
speak on this appropriation that is before us.
I am perplexed with how and why decisions are made, basically, by my
friends on the opposite side of the aisle to do away with economic
development. And as I look at what is happening, what is proposed, for
example, to be transferred to Commerce, what is zeroed out, what I see
is an attack on programs that could create some real initiative and
self-reliance.
The YouthBuild program was just talked about. YouthBuild is an
important program where young people are developing skills and
attitudes to become independent. Why would we zero that out?
In addition to that, the section 108 loan guarantee program is an
economic development program for cities that does job creation and
helps to improve cities and build up the old towns. Many of our cities
are using this; and for some of the little towns and cities, they
absolutely depend on these kinds of economic development funds.
{time} 1230
Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why the attack on these economic
development programs, these programs that will help to make our young
people self-reliant, and the block grant program that is being reduced
by 21 percent, that goes into our cities to help us deal with not only
senior problems, young people, the gangs, et cetera. I think we are
undermining our efforts to strengthen America and to invest in human
potential by cutting these programs and zeroing them out.
I would ask that reconsideration be given, if no place else, but in
conference. I am going to come back later on today with an amendment on
section 108 loan guarantee programs, because that will not be scored
against the budget. These programs are kind of guaranteed by CDBG
moneys, and you do not have to spend the money to get this economic
development.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his
efforts to preserve the HIDTA program, the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking program, as well as the National media campaign under the
Drug Czar's office.
There will be several amendments offered today by the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and by the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Larsen) and myself, one related to ad campaign and one related to HIDTA
to further increase those fundings.
We have a meth epidemic sweeping this country. It is absolutely
critical that we address it in our national ad campaign, which has been
substantially reduced over the years, and through the most aggressive
law enforcement program and the most effective law enforcement program,
the HIDTAs.
We held a hearing Monday in Minneapolis. If you do not have meth next
door to you, it is coming soon. It started in the rural areas and the
rural States, and everybody kind of ignored it. But as it moves to the
suburbs and as it moves to the east, we are seeing an epidemic of
proportions we have not seen since the first outbreak of the crack
epidemic. We either get on it now, or we are in deep trouble.
In Ramsey County, St. Paul, Minnesota, between 80 and 90 percent of
all children in Child Protective Services right now are coming from
meth families. That is not a rural community; it is a big city. Next
door, in Hennepin County, 50 percent of the women in treatment right
now through the drug courts are because of meth.
Formally, this was just at the little towns, and we saw it, although
we could ignore it. But this is a freight train. We have to grab it.
And in the authorization bill that matches this appropriations bill, we
will make sure the ad campaign is designated, that a percentage of it
has to go to meth if we can get adequate dollars to run that campaign.
In the HIDTAs, we have the first meth HIDTA in Missouri. We are
moving to more meth HIDTAs, because we must get control of this before
it wrecks every family in this country. When people become addicted to
this, they go crazy.
We have never seen a drug that is harder to treat, that is more
violent, has more environmental damage, and this Congress has to start
to grab hold of the meth problem before it chokes our country.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a good general debate here for this
hour that covered a lot of the different areas in the bill and
certainly reflects some of the issues that we will be debating as the
amendment process goes forward.
Again, I want to thank the chairman and the staff on the majority and
the minority side for all the work that they have done. It has been a
process which has gone a long way. It will go more in the next day or
two. All of it should improve the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank everyone that participated in
this opening inning or two of activity. We have a long way to go. But I
do think, with the work of the staff on both sides, who I think have
done extraordinarily well to shape this product into what it is, I am
very, very happy with where we are in terms of the kind of bill. I know
there is going to be more debate, and we look forward to that.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank chairman Knollenberg and
ranking member Olver for doing the best they could with the
[[Page H5384]]
limited resources that were made available to the subcommittee.
The allocation that we were given highlights this inescapable fact:
the budget resolution passed by the republican majority has real
consequences.
It is clear, for example, that the funding for Amtrak is simply not
adequate.
It seems to be an effort to shut down national passenger rail in this
country.
Make no mistake: if we fail to provide Amtrak the funds it needs to
operate, we won't just be shutting down the few routes identified by
the committee to be closed.
The resulting layoffs, inability to fund capital upgrades, and lack
of funds to operate remaining routes will eventually lead to the shut
down of national passenger rail permanently.
However, despite this and other problems with the bill, I believe
that it contains many good provisions that deserve our support.
For example, I am pleased that the committee adopted the Hoyer-Wolf-
Moran amendment, providing a 3.1 percent pay adjustment for Federal
civilian employees--which is consistent with the pay adjustment
proposed for our military personnel.
We must recognize the contributions made by both Federal civilian
employees and military personnel to the safety and security of this
Nation.
I am also pleased that the $126.7 million that the president
requested for the FDA consolidation was included in the bill. These
funds will help relocate FDA employees from their current substandard
facilities into modern, state-of-the-art facilities, and end the
practice of extending costly leases for various FDA offices throughout
the region.
Furthermore, I am pleased that the chairman recognized that the
Federal Government has a responsibility to the general aviation
airports in the metropolitan region that were shut down after 9/11--
through no fault of their own.
In this bill, we reimburse those airports for their losses and the
chairman has committed to working with me to increase that amount
during conference to ensure full restitution.
That is fair. And, that is right.
Finally, I am pleased that this bill recognizes the important Federal
role in helping States reform their election systems.
The bill sensibly provides $15.8 million to the new Election
Assistance Commission so it can fulfill the high expectations Congress
intended when it passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
I also am personally gratified that the bill's accompanying report
urges the EAC to set aside $250,000 for the HAVA College Program, an
innovative program that encourages college students all over the Nation
to enlist as non-partisan poll workers.
To be sure, Congress has not carried out all its election reform
obligations to the states. And, I am disappointed the bill does not
provide the remaining $800 million we owe the States to upgrade their
voting machines, provide voter and pollworker training, and improve
voting machine security.
I appreciate the committee's hard work on this bill. This legislation
is not perfect. But it contains many important, needed provisions that
deserve our support.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, not since 1988--more than a decade and a
half ago--has the Appropriations Committee passed all its bills out of
the House before the Fourth of July. This year the committee stands
poised to do so--even though its subcommittees have been restructured,
and it is the first year at the helm for the Committee's new Chairman,
the gentleman from San Bernardino County. I applaud the Committee and
the Chairman for the deliberate pace they have maintained.
The appropriations measure before us today provides funding for
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing, as well as the Federal Judiciary
and the District of Columbia. Under the reorganized subcommittee
structure, this bill represents the first time Housing is matched with
Transportation and Treasury in the same appropriations bill. I am
pleased to report the bill is consistent with the levels established in
H. Con. Res. 95, the House Concurrent Resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2006, which Congress adopted as its fiscal blueprint on
April 28th.
the budget resolution
H.R. 3058 provides $115.2 billion in discretionary budgetary
resources. This is a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2005. Even so,
the bill is consistent with the allocation to the subcommittee, and
therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which
prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays. The
bill does not contain any emergency spending.
To meet their 302(b) limit, the bill rescinds $549 in mandatory
contract authority previously provided to the FAA. The bill also
rescinds $2.497 billion of previously enacted discretionary budget
authority, all but $4 million of the discretionary rescissions come
from the Public and Indian Housing certificate fund.
The bill also complies with the provisions in the budget resolution
concerning advance appropriations. The bill includes $4.273 billion in
such appropriations, all of them in accounts the budget resolution
lists as eligible for advances. The House should be aware, however,
these provisions--along with the $18.885 billion in advances already
passed in the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill--reach the
ceiling of $23.158 billion in total advance appropriations provided for
in the budget resolution. Any further increase in advance
appropriations would breach this limit and subject such legislation to
a point of order.
programmatic provisions
The Department of Transportation is funded at $61.959 billion, $4,457
above the request. This includes $36.3 billion for Federal Aid-Highways
and $14.4 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration. Treasury is
funded at $11.6 billion, $358 million above 2005. Most of these funds--
$10.5 billion--go to the IRS. The Federal Judiciary is funded at $5.4
billion, which represents a $326 million (6 percent) increase over
2005. The District of Columbia Federal payments are $603 million, $48
million above 2005 and $30 million above the President's request.
The bill addresses our critical housing needs by funding the
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] at $33.5 billion,
$544 million above the 2005 level. The bill does not reflect the
administration's proposal to move Community Development Block Grants
[CDBGs] to the Commerce Department, instead keeping the program at HUD.
Also, funding for Section 8 programs is split into two accounts to
provide for better accountability and oversight.
conclusion
Again, I commend the Chairman for balancing difficult priorities and
delivering a bill within our agreed upon budget constraints. I express
my support for H.R. 3058.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, for the last 2 years, the President's
budget requests have failed to meet the housing needs of lndian
Country. Native Americans continue to suffer from severe overcrowding
in their homes and they have higher rates of homes with serious
physical deficiencies than their counterparts. Some estimates indicate
that Indian housing needs exceed $1 billion.
The President's FY 2006 funding request for the Native American
Housing Block Grant (NAHBG) is $582.6 million, a decrease of $40
million from the FY 2005 enacted level of $622 million. But the real
reduction to the NAHBG is even more drastic because the budget request
calls for the $57.8 million in Indian Community Development Block Grant
(ICDBG) funding to come out of the NAHBG account, resulting in funding
for the NAHBG to be a mere $524.8 million. This is a reduction over a
3-fiscal year period of more than $125 million. This erosion of Federal
funding for Indian housing and community development is simply
unacceptable.
I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Michigan who was working
within very tight allocations. The Committee increased the funding for
NAHBG to $600 million, a $17.4 million increase above the President's
request. However, its support of the President's proposal calling for
$45 million in ICDBG funds to come out of the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) account, would leave a total proposed allocation for
NAHBG at a mere $555 million. Appropriated funding for the NAHBG
reached a high point in FY 2004 when it was funded at $650 million.
I do not support the President's proposal to remove the ICDBG line
item from the CDBG account. The ICDBG program has traditionally been
furlded by the CDBG account through a 1 percent set-aside. As I just
indicated, a change to this current funding scheme would further reduce
NAHBG funding.
We have a moral responsibility to provide safe, decent, and
affordable housing for our country's First Americans. Housing is the
backbone of economic and community development. It creates jobs and
drives tribal economies. It is a basic need that can strengthen
progress in other areas like education and health care.
I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle on restoring
the funding of the NAHBG account to the FY 2005 enacted level and
addressing my concerns regarding the ICDBG program as the FY 2006
Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary and District of Columbia
appropriations bill proceeds through the legislative process.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of funding for the
Community Development Block Grant program. The proposed cuts to this
vital program for individual community improvement growth must be
withdrawn and full funding restored.
H.R. 3058 seeks to cut $251 million from the Community Development
Block Grant program, a 6 percent slash in funding and another reduction
in a long string of cutbacks for the program. I stand strongly opposed
to any effort to reduce funding to the CDBG program.
The nature of CDBG--funds for housing, economic development, public
facilities, social
[[Page H5385]]
services, and land acquisition, to name a few--incorporates a
significant amount of flexibility to appropriate funds at the
discretion of each community. What this means for each community is
their ability to use Federal funds for a wide range of initiatives as
well as to prioritize local needs while supporting national objectives.
This great characteristic, leaving specific appropriations for local
decision making, does not warrant reductions in the program, which
would prevent Federal funds from being used where they are needed most.
In FY 2004, the Community Development Block Grant program provided
$4.853 billion to communities across the Nation. In my home State of
New Jersey, CDBG funds many important initiatives. In Trenton alone it
supports childcare services, provides for job training programs, funds
the food programs at local area soup kitchens, and is used towards
building and repairing affordable housing in the city. Elsewhere, in
Monroe Township the CDBG funds ``A Friend in Need,'' a program which
provides homecare to the elderly unable to afford it. It also aids the
South Brunswick Citizens for Independent Living (CIL), which builds
affordable housing for the disabled and provides training programs on
financial independence. These are only a few local examples of this
vital Federal program.
The 31-year history of this program has proven to us that investment
in communities continues to benefit lower income persons in need of
assistance. Most of the CDBG-funded programs have proved to be small in
scale, neighborhood-based initiatives. Expenditures through the CDBG
program for lower income individuals have repeatedly exceeded the
minimums set by Congress.
The 6 percent reduction for the Community Development Block Grant
program included in H.R. 3058 is much more damaging than it seems: due
to the small nature of many of the programs CDBG funds, it would result
in the complete cutting of numerous and invaluable local community
projects. I firmly believe that the absence of these programs would
neglect many pressing needs of the American people, negatively impact
many communities, and, most importantly, prevent Federal funds from
reaching those who need them most.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to restore full funding for the
Community Development Block Grant program as the bill moves to
conference.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3058
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, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development,
the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes, namely:
Amendment Offered by Mr. Edwards
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards:
On page 2, line 5 insert the following new title and
renumber the succeeding titles accordingly:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
medical services
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for necessary expenses for
furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient
care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs and veterans described in section 1705(a) of
title 38, United States Code, including care and treatment in
facilities not under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and including medical supplies and
equipment and salaries and expenses of health-care employees
hired under title 38, United States Code, and aid to State
homes as authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United
States Code; $1,000,000,000, to be available for obligation
upon the enactment of this Act and to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the
amount provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for the purpose set forth in subparagraph (A)
of section 402(a)(1) of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 2006:
Provided further, That amounts made available under this
heading may be transferred to other accounts of the
Department of Veterans Affairs to the extent necessary to
reimburse those accounts for prior transfers to ``Medical
Services'' after notice of the amount and purpose of the
transfer is provided to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and House of Representatives and a period of 30
days has elapsed: Provided further, That the transfer
authority in this paragraph is in addition to any other
transfer authority available to the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have a moral obligation to
support our veterans, especially so during a time of war. This
amendment is out of the regular order of business, but I could think of
no better reason to waive the rules of the House, which we do on a
daily basis here, than to support our veterans, that are being
underfunded in their health care by over $1 billion in this fiscal
year.
Democrats tried during the budget resolution last year to add
additional funding for VA health care because of the needs there. I
tried an amendment in the Committee on the Budget this year, and we
were voted down on a partisan basis. We tried an amendment in the
Committee on Appropriations offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), and we were voted down on a partisan basis.
Now the Veterans' Administration leadership, part of the Bush
administration, has admitted we have more than a $1 billion shortfall
this year in VA health care funding. What that means, Mr. Chairman, is
that every day that passes, there are veterans that are not receiving
the VA health care they need and they deserve.
What I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, is that, on a bipartisan
basis, Members of the House and Senate, Members of the House,
Republican and Democrat alike, recognize the need to fund this veterans
health care. Let us do it today. Let us not wait until after a week-
long vacation next week. Veterans do not delay in serving our country
when we ask them to do their duty. We should not delay in fulfilling
our moral obligation to provide quality health care for our veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me simply say, I hate to say, we told you so, but we told you so.
We warned the majority that, if you listened to the denials of the
Veterans Administration, you would eventually be embarrassed because
their request was inadequate to meet the needs of returning veterans.
We have now been told yesterday, finally the VA is telling us the
truth, and the fact is, this is the only remaining appropriation
vehicle that we can use to add the necessary funds. The Senate added
$1.4 billion yesterday to the Interior bill. That was not germane
either, but the Senate did not let dunghill jurisdictional politics get
in the way of dealing with the problems of veterans. I would urge the
House to follow the lead of the Senate and to allow this amendment to
be added so that we can take care of the problem.
We are not even adding the extra $400 million that the Senate added
yesterday. We are simply saying, take what the VA has already admitted
they need for this year. We know it is going to be more for next year.
But at least take the $1 billion we know is needed now, so that we do
not continue to listen to false promises from the VA.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if no Member of the House objected to this
amendment, if we accepted this amendment on a bipartisan basis, is
there anything that would prohibit this amendment from becoming part of
this appropriation bill, if no Member of the House objected, if on a
bipartisan basis we accepted it?
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman's amendment were not to induce a point
of order, it would come to a vote.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, to be clear on the parliamentary inquiry,
if we could on a good faith bipartisan basis, say, look, this is not
the typical way we want to do business, but we did not get it done in
the Committee on
[[Page H5386]]
the Budget or Committee on Appropriations, so we could do it now,
without an objection today, we could pass in this bill $1 billion in
emergency funding for VA health care without objection. Is that
correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would reiterate that, absent a point of order
against the amendment, the amendment, as all amendments, would come to
a vote.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have a serious reservation to having this
bipartisan discussion regarding the growing understanding of the
shortfall that lies in veterans health care. My reservation, and it is
a serious one, is that it is one thing to want to take credit for doing
something about this problem, but we are attempting to do it in a bill
that is not going to become law for 2 or 3 months.
The gentleman knows that the appropriate committee had an oversight
hearing just yesterday morning to begin to draw in the administration,
get information, et cetera, in order to lay the foundation for
expediting this process. The way to solve this problem and truly in a
bipartisan way deal with the challenge that we have in serving our
veterans is to come together and move something quickly. Any
appropriations bill is going to take longer than that.
So I do not want to be pretending today that we are doing something
by passing an amendment, when regular order will allow us to move much
more quickly. We are trying to lay the foundation for that. That is why
we had an oversight hearing yesterday.
Mr. Chairman, I would think we ought to proceed with regular order.
So in that connection, I have a reservation in terms of what is being
done here today. It appears to be a ``credit'' business rather than
real business. I would look forward to working with the gentleman in
the days ahead.
Point of Order
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
{time} 1245
Further, the rule states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing
law.''
The amendment includes an emergency designation and, as such,
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition on the point of order?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, could I ask the Chair, or
the gentleman from Michigan, for whom I have great respect, were there
other points of orders against this bill that were waived in the rule
that brought this bill to the floor?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from Michigan will suspend, the
gentleman may not yield on the point of order. The Chair will hear each
member in turn.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would direct my question to the
Chair. The point of order being raised now on my amendment to support
veterans health care is that it is contrary to some of the process
rules of the House. Could I inquire of the Chair as to whether there
were other rules of the House that were waived in bringing this bill to
the floor for debate today?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that House Resolution 342 waived
all points of order against consideration of the bill and certain
points of order against provisions in the bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. So all points of order against the bill. Some points of
order were waived, but apparently the majority is not going to allow us
to waive a point of order to help us bring $1 billion to veterans
health care.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the point of
order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply state that the House is in a
strange position today because, under the rules of the House, every
item that is brought to the floor is supposed to be germane to the bill
at hand unless the Committee on Rules has provided exceptions to that.
My understanding of the rules is that notwithstanding the fact that the
rule does not specifically allow for this amendment, if no Member
objects, this amendment could be considered.
So I would simply ask every Member of the House, through the Chair,
whether or not this matter is sufficiently important enough that a
point of order not be lodged.
The gentleman from California suggested that this ought to be
considered in some other venue. We would be happy to do that if someone
had another suggestion; but right now, this is the only dog in the
hunt. I am afraid that if the gentleman persists in his point of order,
the gentleman from Texas and I would have to concede the point of
order; but I would hope that we would not be pushed into that position.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition on the point of order?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether this is on the point
of order, but I would just like the body to know that there would be no
objection on this side of the House to having this item made in order.
Notwithstanding the comments by the chairman here, if that manages to
keep this issue in the forefront, even though he is suggesting and has
suggested that the final actions on this legislation would not occur
for 3 months, if that manages to keep the issue before the body, it is
important enough that that in itself would be valuable, that it be kept
there so that we do indeed find a fast way of dealing with the matter.
The CHAIRMAN. If no other Member seeks recognition on the point of
order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency
designation. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary,
$84,913,000, of which not to exceed $2,198,000 shall be
available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to
exceed $698,000 shall be available for the immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $15,183,000 shall be
available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to
exceed $11,680,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed
$7,593,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed $2,052,000
shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $23,139,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration; not to exceed $1,910,000 shall be available
for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed $1,442,000
shall be available for the Office of the Executive
Secretariat; not to exceed $697,000 shall be available for
the Board of Contract Appeals; not to exceed $1,265,000 shall
be available for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization; not to exceed $2,033,000 for the Office
of Intelligence and Security; not to exceed $3,128,000 shall
be available for the Office of Emergency Transportation; and
not to exceed $11,895,000 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 notice of 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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H5387]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Knollenberg:
Page 2, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $250,000)''.
Page 2, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $250,000)''.
Page 56, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $38,750,000)''.
Page 77, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $67,500,000)''.
Page 77, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $17,500,000)''.
Page 164, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert
the following: ``(reduced by $88,789,000)''.
Page 164, line 12, after the second dollar amount, insert
the following: ``(reduced by $67,789,000)''.
Page 165, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $67,789,000)''.
Page 169, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.
Page 171, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $17,711,000)''.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides an additional
$38 million for tax enforcement efforts at IRS. These funds will
significantly enhance our ability to close the tax gap by more than
$400 million over 3 years.
Further, this amendment restores $67.5 million to CDBG. Some of these
funds may need to be used to provide some funding for the YouthBuild
program if the program is not authorized under the Department of Labor
by the time of final passage of the appropriations act.
The program, for the moment, has been left in suspension because the
administration has not yet submitted the needed legislation, but I am
assured that the legislation will be submitted very soon.
I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver), for his diligence on these issues and for working with us.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Knollenberg-Olver amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor and endorse this
amendment. This amendment represents exactly what I said an hour or so
ago, that the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) has
listened to both majority and minority Members' concerns and has worked
to resolve all issues. He has considered all Members' concerns and,
where he could help, he did; and I thank him for that.
With this amendment, the bill would now provide $50 million for
YouthBuild and will keep YouthBuild alive while the authorizing
committees figures out exactly where YouthBuild should best be
authorized.
The YouthBuild program is a good program. Several other Members
during general debate have talked about it. It is a program that serves
young men and women in their late teens and early 20s who dropped out
of high school, or graduates from high school who find 2 or 3 years
later that they have no real job skills and poor prospects of a good
job. Dropouts in this program get a GED and other key education for the
construction industry. All participants get skills and experience in
housing construction trades.
The program has been in place about a dozen years. Nearly 15,000
units of affordable housing have been built, and nearly 30,000 young
people have learned the housing construction and building trades,
thanks to the YouthBuild program. Many of these young people have gone
on to college. Those who have been in trouble with the law earlier in
life have a stunningly low recidivism rate after they have been in the
YouthBuild program.
Each of the items in this amendment was included in my primary
remarks at subcommittee markup and again at the full committee markup
and in debate on adoption of the rule yesterday. I appreciate the
gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) listening and
responding, and I hope the amendment will be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. Chairman, the worst construction accident in Federal
transportation history in the city of Toledo, Ohio, took place on
February 16, 2004 on the $200 million I-280 Maumee River Crossing
Bridge, affecting serious loss of life. Crushed to death on the job, as
a launching gantry crane collapsed, were Mike Phillips, age 42; Arden
Clark, age 47; Mike Moreau, age 30; and Robert Lipinski, Jr., age 44.
As I mentioned before, all iron workers. There were injuries sustained
by many other workers.
Since that time, the Lucas County prosecutor has been investigating
the accidents to determine if there may be criminal liability in these
deaths. The prosecutor's office has been working with the Inspector
General of the Department of Transportation, but has needs that go
beyond the assistance that the Inspector General can provide. The
prosecutor needs technical assistance in determining answers to
engineering and other special issues. One might expect that such
expertise resides within the Department of Transportation, perhaps
specifically at the Federal Highway Administration.
Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman
Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Minority
Member Olver) be willing to work with me to determine what resources
may be available throughout DOT, including the Federal Highway
Administration, to provide technical expertise in the ongoing
investigation and to ensure that such assistance is provided to the
Lucas County prosecutor?
Additionally, if such assistance is not available directly from the
Department, would the chairman work with us to determine if the
Department can provide assistance to the Lucas County prosecutor in the
hiring of appropriate outside experts?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentlewoman that I
will do everything I can to work with her to make sure that we do
address this issue. So I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it up.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. It is
greatly appreciated.
Amendment Offered by Mr. LaTourette
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. LaTourette:
Page 2, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $17,339,000)''.
Page 2, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,052,000)''.
Page 2, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,910,000)''.
Page 2, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,422,000)''.
Page 3, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $11,895,000)''.,
Page 3, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $60,000)''.
Page 4, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $31,583,000)''.
Page 6, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $25,000,000)''.
Page 9, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $59,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $26,325,000)''.
Page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $626,248,000)''.
Page 51, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
Page 164, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $727,909,000)''.
Page 164, line 12, after the second dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,500,000)''.
Page 165, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,500,000)''.
Page 166, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $568,409,000)''.
Page 166, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $133,417,000)''.
Page 167, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $434,992,000)''.
Page 169, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
Mr. LaTOURETTE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
[[Page H5388]]
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this amendment be limited to 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and myself as opponent, and that this limitation also
apply to any amendments thereto, except one pro forma amendment each by
the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on Appropriations and
its Subcommittee on TTHUD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) is recognized
for 20 minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of
our time, 10 minutes, be yielded to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and that he be permitted to yield time from that 10
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, on the issue of Amtrak, the gentleman from Michigan
(Chairman Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver)
had an impossible task, and I know that we will hear that again and
again and again. The original budget submission from the President
talked about zero, and then we went up to $360-some million, and now we
find ourselves with a bill at $550 million.
I am pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment with my colleague,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as I said, the ranking
member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and
it ensures that we will maintain a little less than last year, but we
will at least make sure that Amtrak can continue its valuable function.
I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar),
for his guidance and leadership as we drafted this amendment, and for
the assistance of his staff.
Unlike aviation, highways, and transit, there is no dedicated fund
for investing in passenger rail development. These other modes all
operate on predominantly federally owned or federally assisted
infrastructure, and rely on government-supported security, research,
and traffic controllers.
We are certainly willing to listen to reform proposals as they come
forward. Already, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, we
have had two hearings dealing with difficulties of Amtrak. We are about
to launch a series of hearings on reforms as we move into this next
century, but this particular piece of legislation effectively strands
millions of passengers and, I would assert, is irresponsible.
The funding levels of $550 million would force Amtrak to shut down
all operations and declare bankruptcy.
{time} 1300
If H.R. 3058 is enacted as it is now, Amtrak would be forced to pay
$360 million in mandatory labor severance payouts for employees laid
off from the elimination of the 15 long distance routes and three
shorter routes in the bill, and $278 million for debt service. Since
that total of $638 million is greater than 550, Amtrak, the railroad
would be forced to default on its debts, abandon its labor agreements
and declare bankruptcy.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment in the bill, the amendment we had printed
in the Record originally would have taken us back to the $1.24 billion
of last year. Due to some difficulties in scoring, this amendment would
restore $1.176 billion. That represents only about 2 percent of the
DOT's budget of $60 billion, whereas 50 percent of the Department's
spending goes to highways; $20 billion goes to air travel. America
relies on this service. This is not the amendment that I think either
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) or I would have wanted to
bring to the floor with some of the offsets we were required to choose.
But that is the nature of the rules of the game. I think originally we
talked about invading perhaps the F&E account and FAA, but thanks to
some rather very clever authorizing work by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) in years past, we were prevented from doing
that today.
This is a good amendment. I ask all of our colleagues to consider it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to express my
gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), one of our most
principled Members and most thoughtful Members of this body for always
seeking to do the right thing, policy-wise, and for the people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown), the ranking member on our Rail Subcommittee, who has
led the charge in support of Amtrak.
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, a recent poll showed that
81 percent of the American people said that this Congress does not
stand with them on their priorities. There is no better example than
what we are discussing here today. I fully support the amendment, but
if the amendment is not adopted, I want Members to be clear that this
will be the end of Amtrak. Today is a day where we are going to fish or
cut bait. This is your opportunity to stand up for the people that sent
you here.
Why is it that we constantly, in the House, hope the other body will
rescue us?
The current funding issue concerning Amtrak brings up a fundamental
question of where this Nation stands on public transportation. We have
an opportunity to improve a system that serves the needs for passenger
rail service, or we can just let it fall apart and leave this country's
travelers and business with absolutely no alternative forms of public
transportation.
Without the funding Amtrak needs to keep operating, we will soon see
people that rely on Amtrak to get them to work each day waiting for a
train that is not coming. We continue to subsidize highways and
aviation, and by the way, one of the strongest vocal persons are
Members against Amtrak. We have given aviation over $20 billion. We
give Iraq $1 billion a week. That is $4 billion a month. But we refuse
to give Amtrak what is needed for 1 week. One week that we spend in
Iraq will fund the entire Amtrak system for the entire country for an
entire year. This is the day. You either fish or cut bait on Amtrak
today, and the American people are watching you.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of this amendment. The current
funding issues concerning Amtrak brings up a fundamental question of
where this Nation stands on public transportation. We have an
opportunity to improve a system that serves our need for passenger rail
service, or we can let it fall apart, and leave this country's
travelers and businesses with absolutely no alternative form of public
transportation.
Without the funding Amtrak needs to keep operating, we will soon see
people that rely on Amtrak to get them to work each day, waiting for a
train that isn't coming.
We continue to subsidize highways and aviation, but when it comes to
our passenger rail system, we refuse to provide the money Amtrak needs
to survive.
This issue is so much bigger than just transportation. This is about
safety and national security. Not only should we be giving Amtrak the
money it needs to continue providing service, we should be providing
security money to upgrade their tracks and improve safety and security
measures in the entire rail system.
Once again we see the Bush administration paying for its failed
policies by cutting funds to vital public services and jeopardizing
more American jobs. This administration sees nothing wrong with taking
money from the hard working Amtrak employees who work day and night to
provide top quality service to their passengers. These folks are trying
to make a living for their families, and they don't deserve this shabby
treatment from the President.
We're spending 1 billion dollars a week in Iraq, $4 billion a month,
but this administration zeroed out funding for Amtrak. Just one week's
investment in Iraq would significantly improve passenger rail for the
entire country for an entire year.
It's time for Congress to step up to the plate and make a decision
about Amtrak based on what's best for the traveling public, not for the
bean counters at OMB.
Some people think that the solution to the problem is to privatize
the system. If we privatize, we will see the same thing we saw when we
deregulated the airline industry. Only the lucrative routes would be
maintained, and
[[Page H5389]]
routes to Rural locations will be expensive and few.
I was in New York shortly after September 11th when the plane leaving
JFK airport crashed into the Bronx. I, along with many of my colleagues
in both the House and Senate took Amtrak back to Washington. I realized
once again just how important Amtrak is to the American people, and how
important it is for this Nation to have alternative modes of
transportation.
This isn't about fiscal policy, this is about providing a safe and
reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this Nation
need and deserve.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I too recognize the difficult position
that the Appropriations Committee has been put in with the cost of
Amtrak and the ongoing costs. I just caution the Members of this body
that there are States like myself. I represent an entire State. The
distance of my district spans the distance of Washington, DC, to
Chicago. Our cities were not established in Montana because of rivers
and a port. We were established because of the rail. Rail in Montana is
not an essential service; it is a critical service. In many cases, we
have good bus service. It just does not happen to be in the area where
Amtrak is. We have good air service. Unfortunately, it just does not
happen to be in the area where the rail is. And so, in our particular
case, where you have a large geographical area with very little
population, it becomes a critical service to provide not only our
products but our passengers as well.
The Empire Builder in Montana has as many as 500,000 people traveling
on it. Do we recognize it is subsidized? Yes, we do. But I do not think
the founding fathers and I do not think this Congress ever intended it
to be run entirely like a business. We want good quality service. We
want a cheap price. The problem is there cannot be competition because
you cannot set up a rail next to the other. You cannot have two
railroads competing against each other. So Amtrak is one of those
entities that cannot entirely be run like a business. And so I hope you
have listened to the gentleman from Ohio's amendment because what it
does is it lays the foundation of implementing the beginning of a
reform initiative within Amtrak that will make it run more like a
business. It can be supported, and ultimately, we will have the rail
service in States like Montana and the rest of the long lines that are
so critical within our transportation system. I hope you will support
the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goode).
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for providing $550 million more for
Amtrak than was originally submitted in the budget. And I want to thank
the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for getting us to this
point of finishing the appropriations bills before July 4.
Lastly, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their work on this
amendment in an effort to preserve the long-distance Amtrak routes. In
my district, the long-distance route is the Southern Crescent Route
that goes from New York and stops in Charlottesville, Lynchburg and
Danville, and I hope it will be the pleasure of this body to preserve
the Crescent Route, the Cardinal Route and many other long-distances
routes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman
from Michigan whether he has a number of speakers, or is going to
continue to reserve until our side has used all of our time. I think we
would like to hear from those who would like to speak against us.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield time to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) to respond to the inquiry?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time, and I
do not have at this point an additional speaker because there are a
couple of things we are trying to work out right now.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Amtrak was there for America after 9/11.
It performed beautifully. Its employees performed. This is delivering
people, product, all over the United States of America. And if you look
at the map, this is all wiped out, all in red. In red, mind you.
It is inexcusable that we are only funding half of what is needed for
Amtrak. There could be no more illusion about the administration's
desire to destroy Amtrak. The Federal Government took on the burden of
passenger rail from the freight railroads in 1971, in a bill signed by
President Richard Nixon. Read my lips. These private companies were
relieved to be rid of what they knew was inherently a nonprofit
operation.
Federal subsidization for other transportation modes is nothing new.
Each year in New Jersey, 4 million New Jersey residents ride Amtrak.
Pennsylvania, 5 million. And look at the investments in the many cities
of Pennsylvania, and Amtrak, that they have invested capital
improvements. We cannot accept half of a loaf.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment being offered
by Chairman LaTourette and Ranking Member Oberstar which would give
Amtrak a fighting chance to function next year.
It is inexcusable that the bill before us today contains only $550
million for intercity passenger rail service, effectively bankrupting
Amtrak. There can be no more illusions about the Administration's
desire to destroy Amtrak once and for all.
The Federal Government took on the burden of passenger rail from the
freight railroads in 1971 in a bill signed by President Richard Nixon.
These private companies were relieved to be rid of what they knew was
inherently a non-profit operation.
Federal subsidization for other transportation modes is nothing new.
We have been subsidizing the money-losing airlines time and time again.
This Congress properly provides tens of billions every year for
highways, public transit, aviation, and maritime transportation
infrastructure and operations. Passenger rail is just as deserving of
our support as the rest.
Each year, about 4 million New Jersey residents ride Amtrak.
200,000 commuters up and down the Northeast Corridor rely on Amtrak
to maintain the NJ Transit system. Amtrak has tremendous impact on our
regional economy in the Northeast. Amtrak relieves congestion
throughout the Northeast on the roadways and airways.
Like so many of our States, my home State of New Jersey already has a
severely strained State budget. Passing the buck of rail operations and
maintenance onto already struggling State budgets is not a solution
based in reality.
Funding Amtrak at last year's level is the very least we can do to
keep the trains running that Americans count on nationwide.
We must support the LaTourette/Oberstar amendment. We must defeat
this ill-conceived proposal. The Congress must provide the dollars that
Amtrak needs to run efficiently and effectively.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment to save Amtrak, and that is what this bill is about: $550
million within the bill shuts down Amtrak entirely. It is not a scare
tactic. It is not an exaggeration. It is a matter of hard financial
truth. Amtrak would have nothing left basically to run its trains when
it pays out its debt and its interest on its debt and its mandatory
labor severance pay outs. And without Amtrak, for example, in the
northeast corridor, 80,000 daily commuters in New Jersey and thousands
more throughout other States would be stranded because many
[[Page H5390]]
transit systems in those States, your States, my colleagues, depend
upon Amtrak to run their trains for their commuters and their citizens.
This is about small and mid-sized businesses having intercity rail
service to sell their goods and services, to send their sales forces.
This is about putting the country and linking it together, the United
States of America. And after September 11, my God, if we do not
understand that this is about national security, we are waiting for the
next disaster like in Madrid. Vote for Amtrak.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the LaTourette-
Oberstar-Menendez amendment to save Amtrak. We've heard the facts about
what this appropriations bill would do. We know that 550 million
dollars will shut down Amtrak entirely. This is not a scare tactic.
This is not an exaggeration. This is a matter of hard financial truth.
With the interest it pays on its debt and the mandatory labor severance
payouts for discontinued routes, Amtrak would have nothing left--
nothing--to run trains. And without Amtrak maintaining the Northeast
Corridor, 80,000 commuters in New Jersey and throughout the Northeast
would be stranded, because many transit systems depend on Amtrak in
order to run their own trains.
As I said, we've already heard these facts. But I want to focus on
the fundamental problem: a combination of unrealistic expectations and
insufficient support that Amtrak has struggled with since its creation.
I hear these complaints all the time: We keep pouring money into
Amtrak, and it keeps getting worse. So we give Amtrak barely enough to
get by. And then Amtrak gets worse. It's a vicious cycle, and it does
nothing to improve passenger rail in this country. We cannot have an
Amtrak on a starvation diet. Do you want to see an efficient, effective
intercity rail system? Give it the money that it ultimately deserves.
There are some other facts about Amtrak that people tend to forget.
First, we spend more money on highways in this bill alone than we have
on Amtrak in its entire history. Second, Amtrak was created when the
railroads begged the government to take the passengers off their hands.
The freight railroads didn't want the burden of these unprofitable
lines, so expecting Amtrak to be profitable on these same lines with
bare-bones funding levels is totally unrealistic.
In addition, no mode of transportation pays for itself. Not aviation,
not mass transit, and not highways. We subsidize them because they
improve the quality of our lives. And that's what transportation is
about. It's not just getting from one place to another. It's about
creating jobs, revitalizing neighborhoods, stimulating commerce,
redeveloping underutilized land, and making us more secure. Amtrak is
part of all of that. It is a crucial link for businesses up and down
the Northeast Corridor. It provides mobility options for rural
communities that don't have airports or inter-city bus service. And as
we saw on September 11th, it is a crucial element of our transportation
system when the airlines are grounded.
Mr. Chairman, people ride trains in this country when you give them
good service. What we've seen in California in the past few years is
that when you run more trains, more often, and you run them on time,
people flock to the trains. We should be arguing seriously about how to
improve Amtrak. We should be making the commitment and the investment
that we're willing to make for transit, highways, and aviation. We
should be here talking about how to build a world-class intercity rail
system, instead of trying to scrape together enough money so Amtrak can
survive another year.
If you want to have a discussion about how to reform Amtrak, you have
to have an Amtrak. This appropriations bill would kill it. Our
amendment would save it. But it is still just enough to scrape by.
Amtrak will continue to defer maintenance, and service will suffer. So
we'll be back here again next year fighting the same fight. But we can
do better than that. We can give Americans the intercity rail system
they deserve. This amendment keeps Amtrak on life-support, but we need
to start talking about rehabilitation and regrowth. I look forward to
that discussion and urge my colleagues to support the LaTourette-
Oberstar-Menendez amendment and keep Amtrak alive.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to
restore funding for Amtrak. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's work
on this effort, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg), the subcommittee chairman for his willingness to work
with Members on this extremely important issue.
While I agree that reform is necessary, the administration's goal of
ending Federal support for passenger rail is at best half-baked. Unlike
aviation highways and transit, there is no dedicated fund for investing
in passenger rail development. Although these other modes rely on user
fees for a great deal of their funding, they still receive a large
amount from the General Fund. In addition, these other modes all
operate on predominantly Federally owned or Federally assisted
infrastructure and rely largely on government supported security,
research and traffic controllers.
Despite the fact that passenger rail has proven to be such an easy
security target in other parts of the world, the TSA's fiscal year 2005
appropriation included only about $12 million for passenger rail,
compared to the $4.32 billion that was allocated for aviation security,
close to half of which comes from the General Fund, not aviation
security user fees.
While the TSA is currently spending $16 million a year on new
uniforms for airport screeners, passenger rail relies on a total force
of 342 Amtrak officers to protect 25 million yearly passengers
traveling on 22,000 miles of track in 46 States. When you consider the
fact that 20 percent of all Americans live in the northeast, and
approximately 1,700 commuter trains travel the northeast corridor every
day, we need to seriously consider the amount of congestion and
overcrowding that would occur if these trains stopped running.
Passenger rail can be extremely effective in relieving congestion,
cutting pollution and lowering our demand for oil while creating jobs
and increasing security. We have barely scratched the surface of
passenger rail's potential, and a commitment from Congress to improving
the viability of this system would lead to greatly expanded
possibilities.
The facts are clear. Amtrak needs Federal support to survive just
like highways, ports and airlines. America is a world leader in all
other modes of transportation. When it comes to rail, we are quickly
falling behind.
Mr. Chairman, many Americans depend on Amtrak for both business and
pleasure. Instead of bankrupting the organization, we should work
together to improve passenger rail. Pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to restore funding
for Amtrak. I appreciate Mr. LaTourette's work on this effort and I
thank the Subcommittee Chairman for his willingness to work with
Members on this extremely important matter.
The $550 million provided by the subcommittee is $650 million less
than the funds appropriated for passenger rail in FY05. Based on the
bill's instructions, Amtrak may use the funds to operate the North-East
Corridor and short-distance trains, but will be prohibited from using
funds to operate its 15 long-distance trains and 3 shorter distance
routes. However, when you take into account Amtrak's considerable
mandatory debt payments and the severance expenses that would result
from shutting down these routes, there is a significant question as to
whether anything would be left for operating expenses in the North-
East.
While I strongly agree that reform is necessary, the Administration's
goal of ending Federal support for passenger rail is at best half-
baked. Unlike aviation, highways, and transit, there is no dedicated
fund for investing in passenger rail development. Although these other
modes rely on user fees for a great deal of their funding, they still
receive a large amount from the general fund. In addition, these other
modes all operate on predominantly federally owned or federally
assisted infrastructure, and rely largely on government-supported
security, research, and traffic controllers.
Despite the fact that passenger rail has proven to be such an easy
target in other parts of the world, the TSA's fiscal year 2005
appropriation of $5.15 billion included only about $12 million for
passenger rail--compared to the $4.32 billion that was allocated for
aviation security, roughly half of which comes out of the general
fund--not aviation security user fees. While the TSA is currently
spending $16 million a year on new uniforms for airport screeners,
passenger rail relies on a total force of 342 Amtrak officers to
protect 25 million yearly passengers traveling on 22,000 miles of track
in 46 states.
When you consider the fact that 20 percent of all Americans live in
the North-East and approximately 1,700 commuter trains travel the
Northeast Corridor every day, we need to seriously consider the amount
of congestion and overcrowding that would occur if these trains stopped
running. I-95 is already clogged and lines at airports are increasing.
If this plan goes through, millions of travelers would be added to this
already extremely congested transportation system.
[[Page H5391]]
The facts are clear; Amtrak needs Federal support to survive, just
like highways, ports, and airlines. America is a world leader in all
other modes of transportation. When it comes to rail, we are quickly
falling behind.
I tend to believe that any successful plan to fix passenger rail will
require vision and truly bipartisan collaboration. We need the
foresight to ensure the survival of this system by improving the safety
and efficiency of passenger rail. Putting Amtrak on the chopping block
directly contradicts this goal. Dozens of reform proposals exist
without jeopardizing the viability of Amtrak and they should be openly
debated in Congress.
Mr. Chairman, many Americans, including thousands in my State, depend
on Amtrak for both business and pleasure. Instead of bankrupting the
organization, we should work together to improve Amtrak.
The Department of Transportation's Inspector General estimates that
Amtrak needs at least $1.4 billion to survive and the Amtrak Board
recently put forward a strategic reform initiative that requires $1.82
billion to make important improvements to the system. The funding
included in this amendment would simply allow passenger rail to squeeze
by in the short-term and provide Americans with effective
transportation options.
Passenger rail can be extremely effective in relieving congestion,
cutting pollution, and lowering our demand for oil while creating jobs
and increasing security. We have barely scratched the surface of
passenger rail's potential, and a commitment from Congress to improving
the viability of this system could lead to greatly expanded
possibilities.
Reform will take time and require cooperation. I know many of my
colleagues, and the Chairman of the Rail Subcommittee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, join me in my commitment to defining an appropriate
reform strategy. In the meantime, supporting this amendment can help to
sustain Amtrak for millions of Americans.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in opposition to this amendment, which is a wholesale slash-
and-burn attempt to restore funding for Amtrak. First, I want to state
clearly that I want to reform Amtrak. It is a broken system that has
siphoned billions of dollars from other priorities over the years.
{time} 1315
For Members who agree that Amtrak needs to be reformed, this bill
provides an excellent starting point. The bill preserves Federal
funding for routes that are heavily utilized and that show signs of
economic sustainability. It also preserves Federal subsidies for more
than 80 percent of Amtrak riders, 80 percent. While the amendment
proposes to leave the route limitation in place, I have little doubt
that if it is successful another will follow to remove the limitation
and return Amtrak to the status quo. I do not want to go to the status
quo.
If that happens, Congress will again send the message to Amtrak that
it is acceptable to run a route so unprofitable as to require a Federal
subsidy of $466 per ticket. We have seen Amtrak's Federal subsidy grow
from $521 million in fiscal year in 2002 to $1.2 billion in fiscal year
2005, and now Amtrak is asking for $1.8 billion. When is it going to
end?
Continuing to throw good money after bad to maintain the status quo
is totally unacceptable to me. Amtrak is threatening to shut down again
because it is unwilling to make changes to improve its profitability.
This marks the sixth time since 2002 that Amtrak's CEO, the sixth time
since 2002, that Amtrak's CEO has threatened a shutdown if we do not
provide more money.
The flaw in the argument that $550 million is not sufficient to
operate trains is the assumption that Amtrak would have to shut down
routes. There are cost-saving measures that Amtrak could adopt to
continue long distance rail service, but it simply refuses to do so.
Furthermore, the offsets to this amendment would cannibalize the
Department of Transportation and important GSA facilities. These in
effect would cause severe disruption to programs within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
First, the amendment proposes to completely eliminate several offices
within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
Second, it cuts funding from the Transportation Planning, Research
and Development account; $20 million of that funding is for commuter
rail in the event Amtrak cannot meet its financial obligations. And
$1.2 billion, if expanded to all routes, as I suspect will be offered,
is according to Amtrak a ``shutdown'' number. So the amendment leaves
commuter rail, particularly in the Northeast, in jeopardy.
Third, the amendment cuts funding from the DOT headquarters building.
DOT's current lease runs out in June of 2007. If the building is not
complete, significant rent increases on the old building will kick in,
as will rent payments on the new one.
Fourth, the amendment eliminates railroad research and development
which provide science and technology support for rail safety
rulemakings. That means no funding for research on such things as grade
crossing safety, derailment prevention, hazardous material
transportation, like the chlorine tank cars that were involved in
Graniteville, South Carolina, earlier this year, or simply passenger
protection.
Fifth, the amendment cuts $435 million in repairs and alterations to
government buildings nationwide. Some may be in your State. This
funding is critical, given that the backlog in repairs and maintenance
currently stands at $6.2 billion.
Six, the amendment takes funding from the Eisenhower Executive Office
Building, which would delay completion of construction, including
security-critical features and the cuts to building operations, much of
which are a part of that. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has repeatedly stressed the importance of modern, safe
facilities.
If GSA is impacted in this fashion, we will not be able to pay for
utilities, for maintenance, or cleaning. These cuts are in direct
conflict with that policy.
Seventh, the amendment would void the FAA's flight service station
contract that would deliver tremendous benefits to the general aviation
community and save the FAA $2.2 billion over the next 10 years. Instead
of realizing these savings, taxpayers will be on the hook for up to
$350 million in additional costs to the FAA in the form of termination
penalties.
This contract has been years in the making. Congress should not step
in after the fact to stop this contract and deny better services to
more than 600,000 private pilots.
Eight, the amendment eliminates the air transportation stabilization
program which issues credit instruments to air carriers.
I know the authors of this amendment feel strongly about Amtrak, and
I appreciate their interest in the issue. And what I am trying to do is
to make sure that we do keep a system in the short term and one that
will develop into a long-term situation. But if you obliterate
important safety and construction projects, that is no way to go about
funding a railroad that desperately needs to be reformed.
For these reasons, I ask Members to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a backdoor attempt to shut
down Amtrak, to guarantee an Amtrak bankruptcy. We simply cannot allow
it to happen.
Amtrak is one of our most efficient modes of transportation. It
provides a vital alternative to our clogged highways. We need to
finally start investing adequate resources in Amtrak to allow the
railroad to provide stable, reliable service.
We spend approximately $50 billion a year on highways and aviation,
but only about $1 billion on Amtrak. We hear that Amtrak funding should
be cut because the railroad is not profitable or is inefficient or
mismanaged. Amtrak has had its problems, but they are largely a result
of being systematically underfunded for 30 years. Deliberately forcing
Amtrak into bankruptcy, destroying it, should be unthinkable.
We do not require highways or the air transport system to be self-
sufficient or profitable. No transportation system is self-sufficient,
and we should
[[Page H5392]]
not require that of Amtrak either. It is an illusory goal. We should
fund our transportation systems because they provide an important
public service. They are critical to the economy and a vital part of
national security.
On September 11, 4 years ago, Amtrak was the only mode of
transportation into and out of New York City. Redundancy in
transportation is key for national security. This amendment will
restore Amtrak funding to close to last year's level and will avert a
shutdown of the railroad. It ought to be adopted. I urge my colleagues
to vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaTourette-Oberstar amendment
to restore funding for Amtrak.
The FY06 TTHUD Approps bill funds Amtrak at a paltry $550 million--a
cut of $650 million from last year's level, which was barely enough to
keep Amtrak running. This is simply a backdoor attempt to shut down the
railroad--to guarantee an Amtrak bankruptcy. We simply cannot allow
this to happen.
Amtrak is of particular concern to me given that my district contains
Penn Station in New York City, the largest Amtrak Station in the
country. In New York alone, Amtrak carries over 10 million passengers a
year, employs over 2,000 New York residents, and contributes over $96
million in wages a year.
Amtrak is one of the most energy efficient modes of transportation.
It provides a vital alternative to our clogged highways. We need to
finally start investing adequate resources in Amtrak to allow the
railroad to provide stable, reliable service. We spend approximately
$50 billion a year on highways and aviation, but only about $1 billion
on Amtrak. We hear that Amtrak funding should be cut because the
railroad is not profitable or is inefficient or mismanaged. Amtrak has
had its problems but they are largely a result of being underfunded for
about thirty years. Deliberately forcing Amtrak into bankruptcy--
destroying it--should be unthinkable.
We don't require highways or the air transportation system to be
self-sufficient or profitable, and we shouldn't require that of Amtrak
either. We should fund our transportation systems because they provide
an important public service, they are critical to our economy, and a
vital part of our national security. On September 11, 2001 Amtrak was
the only mode of transportation into, or out of, New York City.
Redundancy is key for national security, and we must preserve all modes
of transportation, including rail.
The LaTourette-Oberstar Amendment will restore Amtrak funding to
close to last year's level and will avert a shutdown of the railroad.
It is essential that this amendment pass, and I urge all my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret that I rise in
opposition to this amendment offered by my good friend from Ohio.
I would like to remind my friend who is the immediate past chairman
of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings, which has jurisdiction over
the Federal buildings fund, of the negative impact this amendment would
have.
By cutting $750 million from public building projects, this amendment
would endanger Federal workers nationwide by delaying and canceling
fire and life saving projects, accessibility projects for disabled,
perimeter and building security projects that protect against terrorist
attacks, as well as preventing GSA from providing safe, secure, and
functioning work space for Federal workers nationwide.
While I support his desire to increase funding for a reformed Amtrak,
this is not the way to go about it. The gentleman's amendment cuts $570
million from the repair and alterations account. This means a cut in
funding for the repair of the Old Executive Office Building, which is
immediately adjacent to the White House. These repairs are desperately
needed because nearly a third of the building has been closed since
September 11 due to security concerns.
Of even greater consequence would be the $435 million cut from the
general repairs and alterations account. This account provides funding
for projects nationwide including buildings in nearly every State.
The amendment also cuts $150 million from the building operations
account which, in addition to paying for cleaning service, pays the
salaries of the men and women who keep our Federal buildings running.
My colleagues from New Jersey and New York are going to have to go
home and answer to the senior citizens and the veterans that go to a
Federal building to get their problems solved on why the air
conditioning is not working, on why the ramps and the different
projects to upgrade and make easier access are not in place. They are
going to have to answer to the Federal law enforcement officials, the
FBI, and our court systems on why we are not able to do the necessary
security upgrades that are required and necessary to keep these
buildings safe.
So while I applaud the gentleman for his dedication to ensuring
continued operation of Amtrak, I must oppose this amendment which comes
at the expense of Federal workers and their ability to provide services
for our constituents all across this country.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the LaTourette
amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on all sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 11
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to rebut a red
herring raised recently in the gentleman's remarks regarding the
Eisenhower Building. It was not authorized. It has not been considered
in a prospectus by the committee. The issue is nonexistent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the committee for its
accomplishments in crafting H.R. 3058, including increasing funding to
public transit and preserving the CDBG program, I join my colleagues in
expressing my disappointment that Amtrak has not been adequately
funded.
By providing only $550 million for Amtrak, this bill would have the
effect of pushing Amtrak into bankruptcy. Many people might think that
$550 million is an enormous amount. In fact, $550 million is only 5
percent of the total amount that is provided in this bill for the air
traffic control system, and it is $323 million less than Congress has
appropriated to support the redevelopment of transportation
infrastructure in Iraq.
In addition to failing to adequately fund Amtrak, the committee
inserted a provision in the bill that would have the effect of
eliminating up to 18 different Amtrak routes, including six routes that
travel through my district in Baltimore.
Mr. Chairman, it is time we bring to close the prolonged debate about
the future of Amtrak by recommitting ourselves to the value of our
national intercity passenger rail service. I have therefore joined with
my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), in sponsoring an amendment that would save these
18 routes and preserve passenger rail service in 23 States. I urge my
colleagues to keep Amtrak on track.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the
chairman for a great bill and especially this provision of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, the numbers simply do not lie. The current model for
Amtrak is simply unsustainable. This issue has perennially haunted this
subcommittee. Amtrak refuses to take a good hard look at the facts,
instead relying on an annual congressional bail out. They would rather
lobby Congress than reform the system.
When I chaired this subcommittee, we included a series of reporting
requirements and business practice modifications for Amtrak so the
Congress and the American taxpayers would know the financial stakes
involved.
These reporting requirements included developing a quarterly grant
process, giving the Secretary of Transportation direct oversight into
Amtrak decisions, separating out operating and capital expenses, and
also requiring monthly financial reports and zero-based budgeting. And
we insisted that Amtrak employ generally accepted accounting principles
in order to control spending and eliminate waste.
[[Page H5393]]
These modifications have been carried forth and expanded in the last
four appropriations bills, including this one. And what did we discover
with those procedures? Amtrak's financial records reveal that for every
$1 Amtrak earns in food and beverage revenue, it spends about $2,
resulting in a $245 million loss between the years 2002 and 2004.
{time} 1330
Amtrak's on-time performance fell 74 percent in 2003, 71 percent in
2004. Service is not getting better. It is getting worse.
Amtrak's current 2005 revenue projection will be $95 million short of
its original estimate.
For the last 6 years, the average annual cash losses have exceeded
$600 million.
Most notably, they are carrying an estimated $5 billion in what they
need to repair and improve safety on the railroad.
The amendment that is before us does not address any of these
problems; $900 million, or 75 percent of these moneys, in this
amendment would restore operating expenses and debt service on $4.6
billion in accrued debt. No reform, no tough cost-cutting decisions, no
recognition of the facts. This amendment simply kicks tough decisions
down the track.
For too long, Amtrak has deferred critical maintenance on a system it
simply cannot maintain. With this amendment, we simply increase the
cost and increase the likelihood of a serious system failure.
The plan put forth by the chairman is a fair and equitable plan to
limit the Federal contribution to routes that are simply imprudent. By
capping the per-passenger subsidy at $30, Amtrak is given clear
prioritization on its spending and forced to address supply-and-demand
realities.
We simply cannot keep going on sending empty trains clear across the
country with no riders. I would point out that on one of the
crosscountry trains we are subsidizing every passenger by $420 per
person. I can buy you a first class, round-trip ticket to California
for less on an airline. How can we sustain such a thing?
Cut out these wasteful, expensive, riderless trains and save Amtrak
for the places where people want to ride the trains, the northeast, the
Midwest, the West Coast. It makes no sense to run these empty trains
across the country with nobody on them. Save that money. Put it into
the northeast corridor. Put it into the Chicago area. Put it into the
California trains and the West Coast trains, and let us reform Amtrak.
I urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy.
This is the sixth time that we are approaching a shutdown, but it is
not any failure of Amtrak. It is a failure of Congress.
There are people here who have a theological zeal that somehow Amtrak
should be self-supporting, but they sit back as we lavish subsidies on
the airline industry, which has not shown a profit in its passenger
service for 75 years, despite $14 billion in airport subsidies, $11
billion in air traffic control. After 9/11, we gave them $15 billion in
loans and grants. In fact, Amtrak and its operation helps keep down
airline ticket prices because it provides some competition.
What is the problem? Well, first of all, our Republican leadership
friends will not allow us to bring to the floor our bipartisan
legislation that would reauthorize Amtrak. If we would do that, Amtrak
would have stability rather than playing hand-to-mouth. Investing in
Amtrak is the cheapest way to buy airport capacity and road capacity.
Amtrak is not refusing. To the contrary, David Gunn and the
management there are a breath of fresh air. They are being very
cooperative with the Congress that changes signals, makes unrealistic
demands, will not let it manage, and yet ignores subsidies in other
areas and pretends that we should be the only Nation in the world with
unsubsidized rail passenger service, a test that Congress will not
apply to the airline industry. Well, they do not apply it to the
airline industry because they should not. We should have balanced
transportation.
Last but not least, this starvation of Amtrak ignores the huge
shutdown costs that will mean for years to come we will still be paying
more but more so that Amtrak can't operate. Approve the amendment,
reauthorize Amtrak, and we will make sure that we have a balanced
transportation system for the future.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
During the last 35 years, congressional funding for Amtrak has
amounted to roughly $29 billion. It is $29 billion from the taxpayers
that were given for a system which we really do believe in, but back in
1997 with its reauthorization, Amtrak came to the table with an
agreement that they would change their operations and become
profitable.
Today, Members of Congress come to the floor to ask, once again, for
Amtrak to do exactly that. We have heard, boy, there is not enough
money there; we are going from hand to mouth. Yet, we know that there
is $83 million that Amtrak loses alone just in its food service on
trains.
I would submit to this body that it is time now that we take
additional steps to do the right thing, to give Amtrak that necessary
kick in the pants that allows it to be able to offer its service on a
more efficient basis, a market-based way, and this will allow us the
opportunity to end this large subsidy, to have Amtrak do something that
the American public not only has confidence in but is run on market-
based forces. I would submit to my colleagues, they will become a
better transportation service.
I support what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is doing
in his bill. The President of the United States is correct, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), our Committee on Appropriations
chairman, is right. It is time that we take on this unwieldy process of
spending $1 billion a year as a subsidy.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am just inquiring about the amount
of time for each side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 5
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) has 2
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 1\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
(Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, no passenger rail system in
the world that is worth its salt runs without subsidy.
After World War II, the entire rail system in Europe was destroyed,
and they have built up from that time to the best passenger rail system
in the world, France, Germany, the low countries, the UK, Italy, Spain.
Spain, for God's sake, has a better passenger rail system than the
United States.
The first four airlines in the United States are broke or going
broke. If my colleagues have flown lately, and I know all of them have
flown lately, they know what a great experience that is.
The gentleman from Oregon was correct in saying we are going to take
traffic off the interstates. We are going to take passengers off the
airplanes, especially east of the Mississippi and up and down the
California coast, and put them on trains, but we cannot run this system
unsubsidized. It is not possible, and our friends in Europe, our
friends in Japan, that have the best rail passenger systems in the
world, understand that.
I ask the body to fund Amtrak at the level suggested by the
LaTourette amendment for another year. I also ask the body to appoint a
commission to study Amtrak, to put together a plan to make Amtrak
something that survives and is efficient, but my colleagues must know
there will always be a subsidy. I find it an embarrassment that the
passenger rail service in
[[Page H5394]]
the United States of America is in its present state, and something
needs to be done about it. It needs to be preserved.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time.
Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House for some 13 years, most of that time on the
Subcommittee on Railroads, and I always hear that Amtrak reform is
right around the corner.
For the benefit of the gentleman who just spoke, in 1997, we put an
Amtrak Reform Council, ARC, in place for some 4 years to 1991. They
came up with a recommendation, and Congress ignored the recommendation.
Yes, the problem is Congress. No, the problem is not just putting more
money into Amtrak, as this amendment would do.
My colleagues heard the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the
Committee on Appropriations subcommittee chair, talk about the waste in
Amtrak. The GAO just testified before our subcommittee again, for every
dollar that we get in food and beverage service, every dollar, it costs
us $2. We lose $2.
The service, if we had service, my colleagues heard the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) talk about subsidizing routes, the sunset
limited, $466 per passenger. Now, it would not be bad if we paid that
and, for example, the train got there on time. Do my colleagues know
what its on-time performance was? 4.3 percent of the time it got there
on time, an absolute disaster.
We had a hearing on the money that they lost in trying to put in
high-speed service. We have neither high speed and we do not have
service, an absolute farce, billions of dollars wasted, and no Acela
high-speed service in the quarter.
Here is the GAO report. The President has called for this reform. The
Amtrak Reform Council has called for this reform.
I am a critic of Amtrak, but I am a strong supporter. We need a
nationwide system to supply an alternate transit system across the
country, and we are behind countries. We are even behind Romania, which
recently decided to privatize their railroad.
So I get letters. Here is a letter from an Amtrak employee. My
colleagues heard some of the waste here. ``There are so many other ways
Amtrak squanders its money,'' he wrote me, and this is just one. He
said, $20,000 for a 7-week course of which most of the people never
even completed. ``I still witnessed my share of a finely tuned money
pit.'' Amtrak West headquarters, the fifth floor of the Port of
Oakland's luxury high-rise, the place is full of employees but what
they all do is a mystery. Then he says, We have another office 20 miles
away. He said, I started to wonder if Amtrak owns stock in FedEx. They
ship everything FedEx. He goes on and says they fly around the country
on airline tickets, costing thousands of dollars each.
Here is the report of how we save money with Amtrak, not how we
squander it.
Then we had the question of not just losing money but stealing money.
Food service, over 135 employees were dismissed, resigned or
disqualified for improper cash handling and 250 conductors stealing
money. There is the report.
Give them more money. Go ahead, because we will be back here next
year doing the same thing.
Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 1\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for the purpose of making a unanimous
consent request.
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the LaTourette-
Oberstar amendment aimed at keeping Amtrak on track.
This amendment restores funding for Amtrak to $1.176 billion, an
increase of $626 million. This funding will save Amtrak from bankruptcy
and allow the railroad to continue to operate in a safe and reliable
manner.
No passenger railroad system in the world operates without some form
of public subsidy. Yet, unfortunately, the bill before us would
essentially end this country's passenger rail system as we know it.
Countries with well-developed passenger rail networks but much
smaller populations such as Germany and Japan invest $3 to $4 billion
annually on passenger rail, representing over twenty percent of their
total transportation spending.
At five hundred and fifty million dollars, Amtrak would be forced to
shutdown all operations, causing unnecessary disruption and hardship on
millions of Americans that depend on this alternative mode of
transportation.
Local economies and businesses that have benefited from Amtrak's
service would also suffer. Amtrak's twenty thousand workers would be
out on the streets looking for new jobs.
Last year Amtrak provided over eleven million dollars in wages for
good paying jobs for Texas residents.
Bankruptcy is not the solution for Amtrak. The American people want
and deserve a national passenger rail system.
All transportation is subsidized by American taxpayers.
Singling out Amtrak assumes wrongfully that taxpayers do want to
invest in passenger rail and this just plain wrong.
Polls consistently show that Americans support federal funding for a
national rail passenger system.
I urge my colleagues to renew this body's support for a national rail
passenger system and vote yes on this amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
(Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise to support the amendment for
increased Amtrak funding.
Mr. Chairman, the LaTourette/Oberstar Amendment will increase by $626
million the annual funding to AMTRAK.
Mr. Chairman, the President's push to eliminate Federal support of
AMTRAK is a shortsighted, poorly-conceived policy. Federal support of
national transportation systems is a national priority that goes back
to Abraham Lincoln, and to act in the face of such an American
tradition is to do so at our own peril.
AMTRAK provides a great service to California, and is an extremely
important tool for my constituents. In the State of California alone,
AMTRAK operates 70 intercity trains and over 200 commuter trains per
day. The San Joaquins line, which services Fresno and Bakersfield in my
district, is the fifth-busiest passenger line in the country, and
carries over 700,000 people annually. As a matter of fact, three of the
Nation's top five busiest intercity corridors are in California.
California recognizes the importance of AMTRAK, and has invested
heavily over time to maintain its presence in the State. Over the past
10 years, California has invested approximately $100 million per year
to work towards this goal. Many of the routes in California--including
the San Joaquins--continue to experience double-digit ridership growth,
demonstrating the importance AMTRAK has for my constituents and
Californians.
While continued reform of AMTRAK is essential, it must be
accomplished in a bipartisan fashion that reflects a post-9/11 view of
the world. The United States requires an intermodal transportation
system that has real interconnectivity, and protects our citizens'
socio-economic needs in a flexible and cost-effective fashion. We must
remember all forms of transportation in America have and continue to
utilize some form of subsidy.
If this body chooses to not support Amtrak, it will ignore the needs
of the citizens of this Nation. AMTRAK remains a vital and viable mode
of transportation for many people in this Nation, and to undermine that
service will go against a history of service this Nation has put into
the national transportation network.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of time on our
side.
Remarks have been made in all seriousness of purpose by people with
genuine beliefs on all sides of this issue, but facts are stubborn. The
cuts in GSA or the offsets, from cleaning and maintenance, security
issues, that is provided by the Department of Homeland Security. We do
not touch security at Federal buildings. The Federal Protective Service
provides that.
Reference was made by the last speaker to comments of an Amtrak
employee. Let me quote another Amtrak employee, the CEO, David Gunn who
says that, with this funding level, Amtrak will close its doors and
cease operations nationwide.
[[Page H5395]]
{time} 1345
The Association of American Railroads, I want to say for those who
are interested in their views, supports this amendment. ``A shutdown of
Amtrak will cost the freight railroads $5.3 billion over the next 6
years.''
I heard references to needing reform. Well, we passed a reform bill
in 1997, a 5-year reform that concluded in 2002. Every year the
appropriation bill imposes new restrictions on poor old Amtrak. Every
month, under that reform, a business plan is submitted to the Congress.
Now, let us talk about the successes. The 5-year capital plan of
Amtrak focused on restoring the northeast corridor to higher levels of
reliability and safety, restoring the aging fleet of rolling stock,
eliminated three long-distance routes, increased ridership from 22.5
million in 2000 to 25.1 million in 2004, and kept the cash operating
requirement at or below $570 million. There were 256,000 concrete ties
installed, 104,000 wood ties replaced, 226 miles of rail infrastructure
restored, and 50 undergrade bridges have been improved.
There have been improvements. Those dollars have been invested wisely
in the capital facilities of Amtrak. Give it an opportunity. David Gunn
is the best operator we have had. Give him an opportunity to run this
railroad right.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I want to just
comment on a couple of things that were said by the distinguished
subcommittee chairman during the debate. He described this amendment as
being a ``slash and burn amendment.'' Well, I want to suggest that what
was ``slash and burn'' was the budget resolution which has enforced
these kinds of reductions across the budget.
In my view, it is the budget resolution which slashed and burned when
it wound up producing an education budget that left No Child Left
Behind education programs $800 million below last year. It was slash
and burn which left the National Institutes of Health with 500 fewer
medical research grants than they had 2 years ago. It was slash and
burn that eliminated nine out of the 10 programs that were supposed to
focus on the development of health professions in rural areas and in
urban inner-cities. It was slash and burn which has caused this very
bill to provide, in essence, a shutdown of Amtrak.
The gentleman from Oregon summed it up as well as anyone in the
debate today when he pointed out the strange dichotomy that exists
between believing that railroad transportation must show a profit, but
airline transportation, passenger service at least, does not have to.
And I would add that there are hundreds of miles, thousands of miles
in this country of interstate highway that in actuality have very few
riders and standing alone could not justify their construction in the
first place. So it seems to me, as has been said, we need a balanced
set of transportation alternatives in this country. And you do not
balance your transportation system by putting one leg of that
transportation system out of business, as this committee product
essentially does.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge support for the amendment. I do not like
the reductions in the offsets any more than many other persons in this
Chamber like them, but the fact is they were forced by every single
Member who voted for that Republican budget resolution. So like it or
not, those are the choices you enforced, and we choose not to shut down
one of the major transportation legs in this country.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I have risen to strike the last word, first, because I
want to express my deep appreciation to the chairman of the
subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee for a rather
fabulous job done on this bill overall. In a time of short financial
circumstances, they produced a very balanced bill that reflects a
cross-section of very important issues to the country.
I rise also to specifically talk about the job the committee has done
relative to Amtrak. It is not like Amtrak does not have problems, and
it is not like the chairman is suggesting we ought to shut it down by
way of his bill but, instead, to deal with the reality that Amtrak has
been going over a cliff for some time now.
In the last 3 fiscal years, the subsidy has grown from over .5
billion to over $1.2 billion. And, indeed, others in this town have
decided its pathway is such we cannot afford it any longer, so
recommendations were made to zero Amtrak. This subcommittee, in a very
thoughtful way, in a very tough budget year, laid the foundation to
eliminate the very expensive routes to support the northeastern
corridor, the routes in the West, and at the same time try to make
sense out of this process.
It is long past due that we reviewed this policy and put in place
something that will work so we have a passenger rail system. If we
continue on the path the way that we are, and the amendment presented
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) essentially does that,
takes us back to that pathway, eventually the train is going to go over
the cliff and Amtrak will be no more.
I would suggest that the House recognize a rather fabulous job done
by this subcommittee. I congratulate them for their work and in doing
so urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the LaTourette amendment and to
support the committee's product.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
(Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaTourette-Oberstar-Menendez
amendment which would restore funding for AMTRAK.
As a member of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, and District of Columbia Subcommittee, I
want to thank Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for their
work on this legislation.
I also want to acknowledge both the Majority and Minority staff for
their dedication to the difficult task of crafting this legislation
that incorporates such a broad spectrum of different agencies of our
government.
Chairman Knollenberg was given a difficult task with what I believe
was an inadequate allocation. I have appreciated his willingness to
work with both sides of the aisle to make sure that all members of the
subcommittee had input into this final product. Mr. Knollenberg has
done the best job he could with what he was given.
I especially want to thank him for his help with Teterboro Airport in
my District.
Unfortunately, though, I disagree with the allocation for AMTRAK in
this bill. That is why I support this amendment.
The $550 million provided for AMTRAK will certainly bring an end to
passenger rail service as we know it.
Furthermore, this bill only funds the Capital Improvement Program for
the Northeast Corridor line, which runs from Washington DC's Union
Station to Boston's South Station, at $50 million.
This amount is hundreds of millions of dollars below what is needed
to keep the Northeast Corridor in good repair.
Just maintaining the tracks and making needed safety improvements in
my home State of New Jersey will cost $90 million. If AMTRAK where to
uphold their agreement with the State of New Jersey to provide matching
funds of $45 million for track maintenance, that would only leave $5
million left for the maintenance of the rest of the Northeast Corridor
line.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore funding for
AMTRAK to continue the stated goal of this bill to provide viable
passenger rail service in the United States.
Mr. OLVER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I support this
amendment. I believe very strongly that we should have a national
passenger rail system, and I want to see that that is a successful
system and a system that we can modernize and make into one that is
truly a part of our balanced transportation system.
Several people have come to the floor in opposition to the amendment
and pointed out how much money is expended by Amtrak. Well, yes,
indeed, each of the last 3 years has been over $1.2 billion. One year,
3 years ago, it was $1.3 billion. But even at that level of
expenditure, there has not been enough money to even make a serious
dent in the capital needs for the northeast corridor, the northeast
corridor which carries 50 percent of all of the passengers on our
version of the national rail system. So we are being
[[Page H5396]]
quite unrealistic in the idea that some seem to have that it is
possible to run a passenger rail system on the cheap.
The number of dollars that are being talked about here simply does
not run even the inner-city rail system, those 24 lines that the bill
purports to support. As I have said earlier today, the chairman has
used an extremely blunt instrument on Amtrak, somewhat like the
proverbial 2-by-4 between a mule's eyes.
Well, the bill cuts out all Federal subsidy on 18 long-distance
lines, which forces them to shut down. But the cost of doing that is,
as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, giving a more accurate number
than I gave, I said $300 million, he said, I believe, $369 million in
costs that are just to close down those lines in the first year. And it
continues for several years, while those costs of abrogating
contractual arrangements and labor costs would continue. That plus
already the debt on Amtrak's capital debt, the debt service on Amtrak's
capital debt, would be another $275 million and growing.
Those two items by themselves end up being more than has been
suggested for funding by the bill. So the bill is a shutdown of Amtrak.
It is not a reform of Amtrak. That is really for the authorizers to do
over time. What the amendment does, as has been proposed by the
authorizing committee, and I commend them for putting together a set of
offsets which are difficult, but not nearly as difficult in dealing
with Amtrak as the proposal is in the bill, what they have done is
completely funded offsets within the authorization committee's area.
And they are the ones ultimately that are going to have to figure out
how to come up with a bill that in the long run provides a national
passenger rail system and reforms it, which does not have to be by the
basis of cutting out all of these long-distance lines.
The lines that are cut out, shown by that map that everybody has
seen, cuts out all passenger rail service in 23 States, representing
154 Members of this House of Representatives and 46 Members of the
other body. That is just not a realistic position. And the position
which the authorizing Chair and the ranking member of the authorizing
subcommittee have put forward is a position that still requires reform,
because that number of dollars in the long run does not fully fund a
functioning and efficient national passenger rail system.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment that has been put forward by
the gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Florida. Both States,
by the way, lose all of their passenger rail system. I hope the
amendment is adopted.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the last 30 seconds of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with Amtrak is that Congress has
micromanaged its operation. What is wrong with Amtrak is that the
United States Congress has not permitted David Gunn to implement the
reform package that he sent up here in April of this year.
I heard a lot of comments about the food service. I conducted that
hearing with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), and
these statements made on the floor are a little less than accurate.
Lastly, I have to tell my colleagues that priority is important; but
I need to remind people that I voted for a lot of stuff that I might
not have thought is important: cranberry and blueberry research, sweet
potato research, a tattoo-removal program, and even a national anger
management program. Amtrak is at least as important as removing tattoos
with Federal money.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to just comment on a couple of things in closing. This has
been recommended to the CEO of Amtrak over and over: eliminating
sleeper car service would save 100 million a year. Just improving their
food and beverage service would save $83 million a year. If it would
match its train sets to the actual locomotives and the cars they need,
they could save still more money. All those things have been ignored.
Let me tell my colleagues a little about our friend who is the CEO of
Amtrak.
{time} 1400
This is a quote from David Gunn, ``President Bush's proposal to give
Amtrak just over half of what it is seeking in Federal subsidies would
shut the railroad down just as more passengers are taking the train.''
That was February 10, 2004.
Secondly, ``It would be a chaotic shutdown,'' says David Gunn, Amtrak
president, on what would happen to the railroad if a bill passed last
week by a House Appropriation Subcommittee becomes law. That was July
of 2003.
Amtrak President David L. Gunn said last week that if the passenger
railroad corporation does not get a loan of at least $200 million by
the end of month, he will be forced to begin an orderly shutdown of all
Amtrak passenger service in July; June 15, 2002.
And when he was with the folks in Toronto, ``Bits and pieces of the
Toronto Transit Commission risk being shut down and abandoned unless
the cash-strapped organization gets proper funding from the metro and
provincial governments, transit boss David Gunn said.'' That was in the
Toronto Star, February 17, 1996.
Going back to December 30, 1982, ``Authorities in Philadelphia and
the New York area are bracing for possible shutdowns or slowdowns of
commuter rail service beginning New Year's day. `I would not assume my
train will be there Monday morning,' General Manager David Gunn warned
commuters.''
Finally, ``Without an emergency transfusion of public funds, this
area's commuter-train service could die before next July,
transportation officials have warned. `There is the real risk of a
shutdown for the rail service,' said David Gunn.''
This gentleman has done nothing but ask for money; no reform, just
money. And this amendment lies on a phoney offset to reward
mismanagement of Amtrak. The bill fully supports rail service for four
out of five riders or 80 percent of Amtrak's ridership. I oppose this
amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the
LaTourette/Oberstar amendment for $626 million to restore funding for
Amtrak.
Our vision for our country should be more far reaching, our dialogue
more elevated. When we talk about the future of Amtrak it should not be
in one year intervals. We should set forth a plan that begins with a
responsible Amtrak reauthorization bill that Congress will commit to
fund every year. This piecemeal approach that Congress currently
engages in to budget for Amtrak is unacceptable and irresponsible.
The opponents of Amtrak should take a moment and look at all the
Members of Congress lined up to speak on behalf of Amtrak today.
Support for our nation's rail system is not fading--it is getting
stronger.
The American people have spoken through action in their support of
Amtrak. Last year, Amtrak provided service to 25 million passengers.
For the past three years, Amtrak has had an increase in passengers. In
Southern California, the Pacific Surf liner had an increase in
ridership of 25 percent last year alone.
Given the increased ridership both locally and nationally, anything
but a continued investment in Amtrak would be a tragic misuse of
Federal resources and would be extremely shortsighted.
I look forward to standing here next year and praising our leadership
for having done the responsible thing and budgeted for Amtrak, so that
we will not have to debate this issue on the floor year after year.
I join my many colleagues in support of the LaTourette/Oberstar
amendment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaTourette/Oberstar
amendment that would restore funding for Amtrak. The Fiscal Year 2006
Transportation Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations
bill that we are debating today cuts funding for Amtrak to $550
million, half of its current funding level. Without increasing the
funding level to $1.2 billion, Amtrak will be unable to survive and
will be forced into bankruptcy.
In recent years the Administration and some members of Congress have
repeatedly proposed significant cuts in Federal funding for Amtrak.
They seem determined to eliminate this vital transportation service,
and justify these actions by demonizing and blaming Amtrak for all of
its problems. These opponents of Amtrak often forget that the Federal
government subsidizes our nation's airports, roads, sidewalks, and even
its bicycle paths. Why should it treat our national rail system
differently?
Like the 25 million people that rode Amtrak in 2005, I appreciate the
essential public service Amtrak provides. I am a frequent rail
passenger, as are many of my constituents in
[[Page H5397]]
central New Jersey. In fact, 4 million New Jersey residents rode Amtrak
last year, and many New Jersey commuters ride Amtrak or use their
infrastructure daily.
The loss of Amtrak would impact more than my constituents and other
patrons across the nation who depend on its convenient service. Those
customers that rely on Amtrak will be forced to descend on our already
heavily congested roads and airports. These demands on our roadways
will accelerate the loss of open spaces that will be paved over in
order to construct new roads. The additional congestion will increase
pollution in urban environments that already suffer from the ill
effects of smog.
Furthermore, the economic impact of eliminating Amtrak should not be
overlooked. In New Jersey alone, at least $200 million in annual
revenues would be lost from the newsstands, convenience stories, cafes,
and other retail businesses that are located near the rail lines and
that count upon daily commuters for much of their cashflow. This
economic dependence on Amtrak is similar along the Northeast Corridor,
in cities across the Nation and in rural areas that depend on the train
passing through their town.
I am disappointed that the Administration and some members here in
Congress fail to recognize the benefits of Amtrak. I hope that the
majority of my colleagues will appreciate the importance of Amtrak on
America's transportation infrastructure and support the LaTourette/
Oberstar amendment that will keep Amtrak running.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the LaTourette
amendment to ensure that we keep Amtrak up and running.
With hundreds of workers and thousands of riders, Connecticut relies
every day on a healthy and efficient passenger rail service to sustain
our way of life.
Were Amtrak to cease operations the ripple effect on my district
would be near catastrophic. Hundreds of workers and their families
would be without a source of income, thousands of riders would be
forced to use an already-clogged 1-95 or equally congested local roads
and millions of commuters and business in my district and throughout
the state would be inconvenienced and perhaps worse.
Passenger rail in my district and throughout the heavily-populated
Northeast Corridor simply cannot survive without Federal support.
While an improvement from the administration's allocation, the $550
million provided to Amtrak in this funding bill must be increased to
sustain our passenger rail system.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the LaTourette
amendment and to continue our Nation's commitment to a viable passenger
rail system.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring the House's attention to one
fact: Since Members keep asking me, are we going to be here Friday, I
would like to make the point simply that this is the 224-page bill. We
are still on page 2.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of Civil Rights
For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$8,550,000.
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, $40,613,000.
Working Capital Fund
Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays
of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed $120,014,000,
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, 2007: 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. 41731-41742, $54,000,000, to be derived from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the Secretary may transfer amounts
appropriated to the Federal Aviation Administration under any
heading in this Act or otherwise available to the Federal
Aviation Administration, to make such amounts available for
obligation and expenditure for the essential air service
program, in satisfaction of the requirements of section
41742(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, in advance of
the collection of fees under section 45301 of title 49,
United States Code: Provided further, That the Secretary
shall reimburse such amounts to the Federal Aviation
Administration proportionally by transfer, to the extent
possible, from amounts credited to the account established
under section 45303 of title 49, United States Code, as such
fees are collected during the fiscal year: Provided further,
That, in determining between or among carriers competing to
provide service to a community, the Secretary may consider
the relative subsidy requirements of the carriers.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may 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 25, and ending on line 26.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If no other Members wish to be heard on the point of order, the Chair
is prepared to rule.
The provision would provide that funding for payments to air carriers
be derived from the airport and airway trust fund. Authorization in law
may exist for this funding from general revenues, but no specific
authorization in law exists for this funding to be derived from the
trust fund. This is consistent with the rulings of the chair of
September 23, 1993, and June 26, 2001, and November 28, 2001. The Chair
finds that the provision is not supported by an authorization in law.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
New Headquarters Building
For necessary expenses of the Department of
Transportation's new headquarters building and related
services, $100,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
Page 6, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
Page 48, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Page 91, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $47,656,000)''.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may state her parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have been advised that the amendment
has been cleared by the CBO and the parlimentarians, so I would like an
explanation for the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has reserved as point of
order. The chair will entertain argument on the point of order if it is
raised.
[[Page H5398]]
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, in cities and towns across the country,
lead paint hazards still pose a clear and serious risk to families,
with exposure of toxins in the home triggering asthma at a great cost
to American families and the national economy. At greatest risk are
low-income and minority children living in older, substandard housing.
Despite these facts and the bipartisan effort to increase funding for
HUD's lead hazard control grants, this bill cuts funding by
approximately $48 million, risking the health and safety of children
and families across the Nation. Even with last year's funding level,
HUD was only able to fund one-third of the requests it received from
cities and States, and the cut contained in this bill would only make
this situation worse.
With this in mind, I rise today to urge Members to support the
Velazquez-Slaughter-Terry amendment which restores funds to HUD's lead
hazard control grants to last year's level for this critical program
that makes great strides in eradicating lead poisoning in children.
We have a national goal of protecting our children from lead
poisoning by 2010. HUD's lead hazard control grants are critical to
achieving this goal. Without adequate funding, we run the risk of not
being able to match the rhetoric with action.
This amendment reduces funding for salaries and expenses and at the
Department of Treasury, and the Department of Transportation's new
headquarters building. Despite the offsets, these two areas will still
receive sufficient funding, with Treasury still above the fiscal year
2005 funding level. By adopting this amendment, we will protect the
health and safety of children while maintaining sufficient funding
levels, making this a win/win situation.
Even at moderate to low levels of exposure, scientific evidence shows
that lead can adversely impair a child's performance on standardized
intelligence tests, and it can affect school performance, educational
attainment and, ultimately, career prospects. Voting for this amendment
will help with prevention efforts and move us closer to the goal of
eradicating lead poisoning altogether.
For the health and safety of children across the country and for the
billions of dollars in potential savings by preventive outreach, I urge
support of this amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This amendment would add $47.7 million to the fair housing budget.
The amendment would more than double funding for the program over the
2005 level. There is no possible justification for doubling the program
in 1 year.
Additionally, this program has one of the lowest spend-out rates in
all of HUD. Simply put, these funds could never be used by HUD, and
they are absolutely unnecessary. The committee has funded the program
at the requested level which HUD has said is full funding. I have
already indicated why this is the case.
Also, as drafted, all of the funds would go to the FHAP program. If
Velazquez did not mean to double the total and put it all in the FHAP
program, I strongly suggest that the gentlewoman should withdraw the
amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Velazquez-
Slaughter-Terry amendment to restore the funding to HUD's Office of
Lead Hazard Control.
The funding is critical to achieving our national goal of eradicating
childhood lead poisoning by 2010. HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control
provides grants to cities and States to correct serious lead hazards in
their homes. These grants are targeted to individuals vulnerable to the
effects of lead, particularly children under the age of 6.
Lead poisoning affects nearly 434,000 American children between the
ages of 1 and 5, and that is criminal. In my district, 1,200 Monroe
County children fall victim to lead poisoning each year, and in
response, Monroe County and the City of Rochester with its partners
have used funding from HUD's lead hazard control grants to make 220
housing units lead free and safe for children.
The lead hazard control grants work, but only if they are available,
and already one of my counties was forced to stop accepting
applications this early in the year because the money had run out.
Last year, HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control was unable to fund
two-thirds of the requests it received due to the lack of founding.
This year, the office is slated to be cut by $47 million. This cut will
further reduce the number of grants awarded and leave children exposed
to lead hazards.
It is a tragedy that failing to deal with this problem renders
children many times brain damaged, with asthma and other seizures. They
are going to continue to be at risk for hearing loss, developmental
delays, osteoporosis, and kidney damage simply by breathing the air in
their homes.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment to help eliminate
lead poisoning exposure for our children. We can do better, and we
should not squander this opportunity.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am very opposed to increasing this
program at the expense of other critical programs. There are a number
of reasons.
The committee mark fully funds the amount requested by the
administration and fully funds the program that has been in place for
the last decade. These funds go to State and local governments to abate
lead-based paint in homes that will not be restored through
modernization or resale. Three years ago, the Senate began a new
demonstration program and added between $50 million and $75 million.
The House has not included these funds in subsequent years, and the
Senate has attempted to continue the demonstration program each year.
They may well try to do so again.
The committee is simply not in a position to absorb a $60 million
increase in funding for this demonstration program at the expense of
programs that are being funded at the 2005 level or below. This is not
an appropriate trade-off.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that the amendment be defeated and we work to
determine if the program should be included during conference.
{time} 1415
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Today I rise in strong support of the Velazquez-Slaughter amendment
to H.R. 3058. This amendment will restore almost $48 million in
critical funding to help States combat lead poisoning in children.
Just as a reference, my interest is in the children and the families
who live in older areas of cities, including Omaha, Nebraska that I
represent, who have to deal with the lead paint and lead dust in their
houses. On top of that, in my city they also deal with contaminated
lead. So EPA is coming in, cleaning up the lead soil in people's yards,
but yet are not doing anything to clean up the lead poisoning from the
paint inside and outside those homes.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that as
many as 1,600 children in East Omaha have harmful levels of lead in
their bodies. There are 86,000 residents in Omaha affected by the lead
cleanup.
Parents wonder whether it is safe for their children to play outside,
but they must continually check windowsills for lead dust and beware of
cracking paint inside their homes to help protect their children from
lead poisoning.
The dangers of lead poisoning are well known and heightened for young
children. High levels of lead in the body can cause asthma, brain
damage, mental retardation, hearing loss, hyperactivity, and
developmental delays. The Federal Government will end up paying the
costs of lead poisoning in Medicaid, S-CHIP, and IDEA dollars unless
greater resources are directed toward lead remediation efforts such as
the State grant program operated by the EPA's Office on Lead Hazard
Control.
The amendment offered today will prevent a significant cut to this
program from $166 million in fiscal year
[[Page H5399]]
2005 to $119 million in the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill
under consideration right now. This year the EPA was only able to fund
one third of the State grant proposals for lead-based paint
remediation. The city of Omaha in its dire need lost a $3 million grant
for HUD assistance. This situation can only worsen unless the amendment
is approved today.
I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Velazquez) for championing this effort and
strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this commonsense
amendment to help protect children from the dangers of lead poisoning.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the
chairman's statement regarding the fact that HUD did not use all the
money last year.
Let me just say that HUD only funded one third of all grants
applications that were submitted to HUD last year; so clearly there is
a need.
Today we have the opportunity to send a strong message to the
estimated 310,000 children that every year are poisoned by lead. Lead
paint is a serious problem, taking an especially hard toll on low-
income minority communities. If we do not address this issue now by
investing in preventative measures, we run the risk of suffering the
ramifications for decades to come.
We cannot put a price on a child's health. However, we can recognize
the impact cutting funding for HUD's lead hazard control grants will
have on the health and safety of children around the country.
This amendment will simply restore funding to last year's level while
maintaining adequate funding levels for the programs it reduces through
off-sets. With the need for this program outpacing the ability of
community organizations to work with affected neighborhoods, we cannot
sit idly by and fail to, at the very least, maintain current funding
for such crucial services.
I urge the Members to support this amendment and vote in favor of
holding the line to protect the lives of children in all our districts.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan withdraw his
reservation?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting 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, $8,042,920,000, of which
$4,986,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $6,424,229,000 shall be
available for air traffic services activities; not to exceed
$951,042,000 shall be available for aviation regulation and
certification activities; not to exceed $222,171,000 shall be
available for research and acquisition activities; not to
exceed $11,759,000 shall be available for commercial space
transportation activities; not to exceed $50,583,000 shall be
available for financial services activities; not to exceed
$69,943,000 shall be available for human resources program
activities; not to exceed $150,744,000 shall be available for
region and center operations and regional coordination
activities; not to exceed $140,337,000 shall be available for
staff offices; and not to exceed $36,612,000 shall be
available for information services: Provided, That none of
the funds in this Act shall be available for the Federal
Aviation Administration to finalize or implement any
regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not
specifically authorized by law after the date of the
enactment of this Act: Provided further, That there may be
credited to this appropriation funds received from States,
counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public
authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in
the provision of agency services, including receipts for the
maintenance and operation of air navigation facilities, and
for issuance, renewal or modification of certificates,
including airman, aircraft, and repair station certificates,
or for tests related thereto, or for processing major repair
or alteration forms: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, not less than $7,500,000
shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing program:
Provided further, That funds may be used to enter into a
grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting
organization to assist in the development of aviation safety
standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available for new applicants for the second
career training program: Provided further, That none of the
funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay
under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration
employee unless such employee actually performed work during
the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or
expended to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station
in the contiguous United States: Provided further, That none
of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and
cartography are available for activities conducted by, or
coordinated through, the Working Capital Fund: Provided
further, That 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.
In addition, $150,000,000 for transition costs associated
with OMB Circular A-76 Flight Service Station competition.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Knollenberg:
Page 7, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $263,000,000)''.
Page 7, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $263,000,000)''
Mr. KNOLLENBERG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. On
page 7, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``increased by
$263,000,000,'' and page 7, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``increased by $263,000,000.''
What it does simply is it adds $263 million to FAA safety programs.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just want to say we agree with the amendment that has been offered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Poe
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Poe:
Page 7, lines 8, 9, and 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $24,875,000)''.
Page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $24,875,000)''.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, the FAA, in a report mandated by Congress in
the Vision of 100 Act, reported that over the next 10 years, 73 percent
of the agency's nearly 15,000 air traffic controllers will become
eligible to retire. Total losses over this time are expected to be
11,000.
More than 649 million passengers flew our Nation's skies last year.
As America's aviation system continues to expand, we must ensure we
have the proper number of trained air traffic controllers to make
travel move efficiently and safely. FAA's current staffing plan calls
for the hiring and training of 12,000 controllers over the next 10
years.
While the underlying bill provides just under $25 million, up from
$9.5 million in the fiscal year 2005 to do this, I believe it falls
short and fails to account for the immediate specific staffing needs as
well as additional controllers for expected increases in traffic
volume, an expected 5 percent training failure rate, and the higher-
than-normal retirement rates beyond 2014.
[[Page H5400]]
This amendment simply would add $24.875 million to the FAA's Air
Traffic Services account which would double the funding called for in
the bill to better address short-term and long-term air traffic
controller staffing and training needs. It reduces overall spending in
the bill by 4.5 percent for Amtrak.
Amtrak continues to operate at a deficit and requires substantial
taxpayer subsidies to operate. At a time of flat budgets and large
deficits, taxpayers cannot continue to subsidize the poor management
and unprofitable services of Amtrak. According to the House Committee
on Appropriations, Amtrak alone is to blame for the bulk of their
problems, most notably taking on nearly $4 billion in debt. A rider
taking a train from Orlando to Los Angeles receives a $466 taxpayer
subsidy on top of a $165 ticket for a trip that takes more than 71
hours. For $211, less than half the Federal subsidy alone, the same
traveler could fly from Orlando to Los Angeles in less than 6 hours.
The Amtrak CEO has reported six times in the past that if it is not
provided more funding, it is threatening to shut down.
So I ask my colleagues, why are we consistently throwing money at
Amtrak when it consistently operates at a deficit, especially when we
need this money for the FAA and air traffic controllers? People are
going to continue to fly, Mr. Chairman; and it is important that we
make the skies safe for them.
Point of Order
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I make a point order against the
amendment because it increases an appropriation from the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund over the amount authorized from that fund and
therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Hearing none, the Chair will rule.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) proposes
to increase the appropriation for a certain account in the bill that as
presently proposed is at a level authorized by law.
Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an increase must be specifically
authorized by law. The burden of establishing the authorization law
rests with the proponent of the amendment. In this instance, the
proponent must show that the amendment does not cause the pending
appropriation to exceed the level authorized in law.
Finding that this burden has not been carried, the Chair sustains the
point of order. The amendment is not in order.
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, $3,053,000,000, of which
$2,618,000,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2008, and of which $435,000,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2006: Provided, That there may be credited to
this appropriation funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private
sources, for expenses incurred in the establishment and
modernization of air navigation facilities: Provided further,
That upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal
year 2007 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
2007 through 2011, with total funding for each year of the
plan constrained to the funding targets for those years as
estimated and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(airport and airway trust fund)
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
research, engineering, and development, as authorized under
part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code,
including construction of experimental facilities and
acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant,
$130,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other
public authorities, and private sources, for expenses
incurred for research, engineering, and development.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(airport and airway trust fund)
(including rescission)
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,
$3,600,000,000 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 $3,600,000,000 in fiscal year 2006,
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
$81,346,584 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
Program: Provided further, That of the amount authorized for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, under sections
48103 and 48112 of title 49, United States Code, $469,000,000
are rescinded.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
paragraph.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida will state his point
of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 11, line
22, beginning with ``; for grants'' through page 12, line 1, ending
with the word ``code.''
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of House rules.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Hearing none, the Chair will rule.
The provision proposes to earmark certain funds in the bill.
Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the
authorization in law rests in this instance with the committee or other
proponent of the provision.
Finding that this burden has not been carried, the point of order is
sustained, and the provision is stricken from the bill.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a further point of order against the
paragraph.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 12, line
12, beginning with ``provided further'' through line 17 ending with the
word ``program.''
This provision also violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes
existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation
bill in violation of the House rules.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Hearing none, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
administrative provisions--federal aviation administration
Sec. 101. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
airports may transfer without
[[Page H5401]]
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 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. 104. 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. 105. (a) Section 44302(f)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``2005,'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2006,''.
(b) Section 44303(b) of such title is amended by striking
``2005,'' and inserting ``2006,''.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used for engineering work related to an additional
runway at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.
Federal Highway Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the
Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $359,529,000
shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made
available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration
together with advances and reimbursements received by the
Federal Highway Administration.
Federal-Aid Highways
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for
which are in excess of $36,287,100,000 for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal
year 2006: Provided, That within the $36,287,100,000
obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction programs, not more than $485,000,000
shall be available for the implementation or execution of
programs for transportation research (as authorized by title
23, United States Code, as amended; section 5505 of title 49,
United States Code, as amended; and sections 5112 and 5204-
5209 of Public Law 105-178, as amended) for fiscal year 2006:
Provided further, That this limitation on transportation
research programs shall not apply to any authority previously
made available for obligation: Provided further, That the
Secretary may, as authorized by sections 183 and 184 of title
23, United States Code, charge and collect a fee, from the
applicant for a direct loan, guaranteed loan, or line of
credit to cover the cost of the financial and legal analyses
performed on behalf of the Department: Provided further, That
such fees are available until expended to pay for such costs:
Provided further, That such amounts are in addition to
administrative expenses that are also available for such
purpose, and are not subject to any obligation limitation or
the limitation on administrative expenses under 23 U.S.C.
188.
federal-aid highways
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for carrying
out the provisions of title 23, United States Code, that are
attributable to Federal-aid highways, including the National
Scenic and Recreational Highway as authorized by 23 U.S.C.
148, not otherwise provided, including reimbursement for sums
expended pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308,
$36,000,000,000 or so much thereof as may be available in and
derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account), to remain available until expended.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
paragraph.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase
``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 16, line 8.
{time} 1430
This phrase violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in
violation of House rules.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). Is there any Member who wishes to
be heard on the point of order? Hearing none, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of Rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and the provision
is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Administrative Provisions--Federal Highway Administration
Sec. 110. (a) For fiscal year 2006, the Secretary of
Transportation shall--
(1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid highways amounts authorized for administrative
expenses and programs funded from the administrative takedown
authorized by section 104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United States
Code, for the highway use tax evasion program, and for the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
(2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation
for Federal-aid highways that is equal to the unobligated
balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety programs for the prior fiscal
years the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
(3) determine the ratio that--
(A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways less
the aggregate of amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1)
and (2), bears to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
(other than sums authorized to be appropriated for sections
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (b) and
sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of title
23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to in
subsection (b)(8)) for such fiscal year less the aggregate of
the amounts not distributed under paragraph (1) of this
subsection;
(4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
highways less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2) for section 201 of the Appalachian
Regional Development Act of 1965 and $2,000,000,000 for such
fiscal year under section 105 of title 23, United States Code
(relating to minimum guarantee) so that the amount of
obligation authority available for each of such sections is
equal to the amount determined by multiplying the ratio
determined under paragraph (3) by the sums authorized to be
appropriated for such section (except in the case of section
105, $2,000,000,000) for such fiscal year;
(5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraph (4) for each of the programs that
are allocated by the Secretary under title 23, United States
Code (other than activities to which paragraph (1) applies
and programs to which paragraph (4) applies) by multiplying
the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the sums
authorized to be appropriated for such program for such
fiscal year; and
(6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs (other than
the minimum guarantee program, but only to the extent that
amounts apportioned for the minimum guarantee program for
such fiscal year exceed $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian
development highway system program) that are apportioned by
the Secretary under title 23, United States Code, in the
ratio that--
(A) sums authorized to be appropriated for such programs
that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear
to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
such programs that are apportioned to all States for such
fiscal year.
(b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation
limitation for Federal-aid highways shall not apply to
obligations: (1) under section 125 of title 23, United States
Code; (2) under section 147 of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under section 9 of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under sections 131(b) and 131(j)
of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982; (5)
under sections 149(b) and 149(c) of the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987;
(6) under sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (7) under
section 157 of title 23, United States Code, as in effect on
the day before the date of the enactment of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; (8) under
section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, only in an
amount equal to $639,000,000 for such fiscal year); and (9)
for Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation
authority was made available under the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st
[[Page H5402]]
Century or subsequent public laws for multiple years or to
remain available until used, but only to the extent that such
obligation authority has not lapsed or been used.
(c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall after
August 1 for such fiscal year revise a distribution of the
obligation limitation made available under subsection (a) if
a State will not obligate the amount distributed during that
fiscal year and redistribute sufficient amounts to those
States able to obligate amounts in addition to those
previously distributed during that fiscal year giving
priority to those States having large unobligated balances of
funds apportioned under sections 104 and 144 of title 23,
United States Code, section 160 (as in effect on the day
before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century) of title 23, United States Code, and under
section 1015 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991.
(d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to
Transportation Research Programs.--The obligation limitation
shall apply to transportation research programs carried out
under chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, except that
obligation authority made available for such programs under
such limitation shall remain available for a period of 3
fiscal years.
(e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the distribution of obligation
limitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
distribute to the States any funds: (1) that are authorized
to be appropriated for such fiscal year for Federal-aid
highways programs (other than the program under section 160
of title 23, United States Code) and for carrying out
subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49, United States Code,
and highway-related programs under chapter 4 of title 23,
United States Code; and (2) that the Secretary determines
will not be allocated to the States, and will not be
available for obligation, in such fiscal year due to the
imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year.
Such distribution to the States shall be made in the same
ratio as the distribution of obligation authority under
subsection (a)(6). The funds so distributed shall be
available for any purposes described in section 133(b) of
title 23, United States Code.
(f) Special Rule.--Obligation limitation distributed for a
fiscal year under subsection (a)(4) of this section for a
section set forth in subsection (a)(4) shall remain available
until used and shall be in addition to the amount of any
limitation imposed on obligations for Federal-aid highway and
highway safety construction programs for future fiscal years.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 110.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law,
and therefore, it constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in
violation of House rules.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member who wishes to be heard on
the point of order? Hearing none, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this section includes language imparting
direction. The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the
section is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 111. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data
products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways
account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such
expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the
obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction.
Sec. 112. Bypass Bridge at Hoover Dam. (a) In General.--
Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Transportation
may expend from any funds appropriated for expenditure in
accordance with title 23, United States Code, for payment of
debt service by the States of Arizona and Nevada on notes
issued for the bypass bridge project at Hoover Dam, pending
appropriation or replenishment for that project.
(b) Reimbursement.--Funds expended under subsection (a)
shall be reimbursed from the funds made available to the
States of Arizona and Nevada for payment of debt service on
notes issued for the bypass bridge project at Hoover Dam.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 112.
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 Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member who wishes to be heard on
the point of order? Hearing none, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this section includes language conferring
authority. The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the
section is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs
(limitation on obligations)
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
(including transfer of funds)
None of the funds provided for expenses for administration
of motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier safety
research shall be available for fiscal year 2006, the
obligations for which are in excess of $215,000,000:
Provided, That for payment of obligations incurred to pay
administrative expenses of and motor carrier research by the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, $215,000,000, to
be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account), together with advances and reimbursements
received by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
the sum of which shall remain available until expended.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
liquidation of contract authorization
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out motor
carrier safety grant programs in accordance with title 49,
United States Code, $286,000,000, to be derived from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and
to remain available until expended: Provided, That none of
the funds provided for the implementation or execution of
motor carrier safety grant programs authorized by title 49,
United States Code, shall be available for fiscal year 2006,
the obligations for which are in excess of $286,000,000.
Administrative Provision--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Sec. 120. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall
be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section
350 of Public Law 107-87, including that the Secretary submit
a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
annually on the safety and security of transportation into
the United States by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and Research
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under
chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, and part C of
subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, $152,367,000, of
which $135,367,000 is to remain available until September 30,
2008, and $17,000,000 is to remain available until expended:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or implement any
rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations any requirement pertaining to a
grading standard that is different from the three grading
standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance)
already in effect.
Operations and Research
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to remain available until
expended, $75,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the total
obligations for which, in fiscal year 2006, are in excess of
$75,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.
National Driver Register
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out chapter
303 of title 49, United States Code, $4,000,000, to be
derived from the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That none of
the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs the obligations for
which are in excess of $4,000,000 for the National Driver
Register authorized under chapter 303 of title 49, United
States Code.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, and 410, to remain
available until expended, $551,000,000 to be derived from the
Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended:
Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the total
obligations for which, in fiscal year 2006, are
[[Page H5403]]
in excess of $551,000,000 for programs authorized under 23
U.S.C. 402, 405, and 410, and the State Traffic Safety
Information Systems Improvements, High Visibility
Enforcement, Child Safety and Booster Seat, and Motorcyclist
Safety grants programs, to be allocated as follows:
$229,000,000 shall be for ``Highway Safety Programs'' under
23 U.S.C. 402, $136,000,000 shall be for ``Occupant
Protection Incentive Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 405,
$129,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410, $30,000,000
shall be for State Traffic Safety Information Systems
Improvement grants, $15,000,000 shall be for High Visibility
Enforcement grants, $6,000,000 shall be for Child Safety and
Booster Seat grants, and $6,000,000 shall be for Motorcyclist
Safety grants: Provided further, That none of these funds
shall be used for construction, rehabilitation, or remodeling
costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State,
local, or private buildings or structures: Provided further,
That not to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available
for section 402, not to exceed $3,306,000 of the funds made
available for section 405, and not to exceed $3,000,000 of
the funds made available for section 410 shall be available
to NHTSA for administering highway safety grants under
chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code: Provided further,
That not to exceed $500,000 of the funds made available for
section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures
Grants'' shall be available for technical assistance to the
States.
Administrative Provision--National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Sec. 130. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
States may use funds provided in this Act under section 402
of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place highway
safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema,
and print media, and on the Internet in accordance with
guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation: Provided,
That any State that uses funds for such public service
messages shall submit to the Secretary a report describing
and assessing the effectiveness of the messages: Provided
further, That $10,000,000 of the funds allocated under
section 405 of title 23, United States Code, shall be used as
directed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator
to purchase national paid advertising (including production
and placement) to support national safety belt mobilizations:
Provided further, That, of the funds allocated under section
410 of title 23, United States Code, $6,000,000 shall be used
as directed by the Administrator to support national impaired
driving mobilizations and enforcement efforts, $14,000,000
shall be used as directed by the Administrator to purchase
national paid advertising (including production and
placement) to support such national impaired driving
mobilizations and enforcement efforts.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 130.
Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 28, line 15,
beginning with ``provided further'' through page 29, line 2.
These provisos violate clause 2 of rule XXI. They change existing law
which constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of
House rules.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be
extended to the entire paragraph.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anybody wish to be heard on the point of
order? Hearing none, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law.
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of Rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the section is
stricken from the bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to what page that would
apply to, through what page?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It will apply to section 130, beginning on page
28, and ending on page 29, line 2.
The Clerk will read:
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and Operations
For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad
Administration, not otherwise provided for, $145,949,000, of
which $13,856,000 shall remain available until expended.
Railroad Research and Development
For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $26,325,000, to remain available until expended.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to
the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations
pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as
amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be
necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the
guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under
sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist
as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding:
Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as
amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments
shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium
during fiscal year 2006.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
For necessary expenses for the Next Generation High-Speed
Rail program as authorized under 49 U.S.C. 26101 and 26102,
$10,165,000, to remain available until expended.
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly
grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
$550,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That none of the funds herein shall be available
for the operation and maintenance of routes RT16A, RT18,
RT19, RT22, RT25, RT26, RT27, RT28, RT30, RT32, RT33, RT34,
RT45, RT48, RT52, RT54, RT63, RT66, as in existence on May 1,
2005: Provided further, That of the funds provided,
$50,000,000 shall be used by the Secretary of Transportation
to enter into contracts to make improvements to the Northeast
Corridor, as authorized under chapters 241 and 249 of title
49, United States Code.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
In the matter relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION--
Federal Railroad Administration--grants to national railroad
passenger corporation'', strike ``none of the funds herein''
and all that follows through ``further, That''.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will
strike the language in this bill that prevents funding for 18 important
Amtrak routes throughout the country. Without this amendment, 23
States, over 154 Members and 258 local communities and over 4 million
passengers will be waiting for a train that is not coming.
This assault on Amtrak by the President and some of his allies in the
Congress is a perfect example of why 81 percent of the American people
believe Congress is out of touch with their priorities. This is the
People's House, and I would hope that the House would do the people's
work and also not wait for the other body to rescue us.
We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, $4 billion a month, but there is
no money for Amtrak or its passengers. Just one week's investment in
Iraq would fund passenger rail for the entire country for the entire
year. In fact, listen up, we could fund Amtrak for a year with the $1
billion that the Pentagon said was misappropriated by Halliburton.
I just want someone to explain to the American people why investing
in transportation in Iraq is more important than investing in passenger
rail right here in the United States. No transportation system in the
world pays for itself. We continue to subsidize highways and aviation,
but when it comes to passenger rail systems, we refuse to provide money
needed for Amtrak to survive. For years, we put Amtrak on a starvation
diet, and now we are trying to kill it off.
Last year, we authorized more than $3 billion out of general revenue
funds for the Federal Aviation Administration, and this is in addition
to the $20 billion in financial relief that we provided to the airlines
after 9/11, all paid for by the American public.
It is important to note that the Members who complain the loudest
about Amtrak are the same Members that open up the American checkbook
and ask how much do they need when the airlines come calling, all while
ticket prices go up and service goes down.
I represent central Florida, which depends on tourists for its
economy, and we need people to be able to get to the State to enjoy it.
Ever since September 11, more and more people are turning from airlines
to Amtrak, and they deserve safe and dependable service. But if this
amendment is not passed, the 200,000 visitors that take the AutoTrain
to Florida each year will not be visiting our great State.
This is just one example of Amtrak's impact on my State. Amtrak runs
four long distance trains through Florida, employing 990 residents,
with wages totaling over $43 million. They purchased
[[Page H5404]]
over $13 million in goods and services last year, and they are doing it
at the same time in every single State.
We have maps and information right here, and I would encourage my
colleagues to see what impact Amtrak has on their State.
I want to thank all of the Members who have come to the Floor in
support of Amtrak. I strongly encourage my colleagues to do the right
thing for their constituents and support this important amendment. If
we do not fund Amtrak, we will leave 25 million people waiting for a
train that is not coming.
Mr. Chairman, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but
you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The American people
support passenger rail service in this country. We will be the only
civilized country that does not have passenger rail service.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove from the bill the
limitation on routes that would be eligible for Federal funding, take
them all out. It would strip any semblance of reform out of the House
bill. All reform goes out the window.
If we want to talk about killing Amtrak, if you really want to kill
it, this is the way to do it. In the FY 2006 grant request, Amtrak
specifically stated that it cannot continue to operate all routes with
$1.2 billion, all routes. The LaTourette amendment offered earlier
provides less than $1.2 billion. If this amendment is adopted, the
northeast corridor is in jeopardy, the northeast corridor is in real
bad shape.
The limitation in the bill protects the northeast corridor. This
amendment does not. Amtrak supporters in the northeast need to
understand that supporting this amendment redirects the funding to the
highly unprofitable routes, routes that carry Federal subsidies up to
$466 per passenger, routes that carry less than 20 percent of Amtrak's
riders, and it leaves more than 52 percent of Amtrak riders in the
northeast exposed to a shutdown, 52 percent, over half.
Striking the limitation on route eligibility will siphon funding from
routes that chill the promise of self-sufficiency, routes that are well
used, to routes that will never, never, never under any circumstances
be profitable.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my brothers and sisters from both
sides of the aisle that this was a national system envisioned by the
President in 1971, President Nixon, who had the bipartisan support of
the Congress of the United States. And why was it proposed? It was
proposed because the private companies wanted out. They no longer could
pay for a system that serviced America.
Now, let me say what that system encompasses, I support this
amendment by the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Railroads.
Just three of those routes in red that you want to dispose of, the
Silver Service, the Silver Meteor and the Palmetto, from New York to
Miami, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, all the way to
Jacksonville-Tampa and Fort Lauderdale, services 738,000 people. No
small potatoes. That is a lot of folks. Where are you asking them to
go? How are they going to get between destinations?
While I can accept that Amtrak must reform and while I can accept
that we need to do away with any frivolous spending whatsoever, we need
to sustain a system here, and we need to figure out on both sides of
the aisle how to do it.
{time} 1445
The Crescent from New York to New Orleans to Philadelphia to
Wilmington, to Baltimore, Washington, Greensboro, Charlotte, Atlanta
and Birmingham, 256,000 people, 256,000 passengers. And the Carolinian
from Charlotte to New York City, 305,000 passengers. That is why I
support the Brown-Menendez-Rahall amendment to keep these Amtrak trains
on track.
I want to express in the strongest words here, Mr. Chairman, contrary
to what one might expect, residents in my area of New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, they travel rail to Florida. They do not
only travel the northeast corridor, they travel by rail to the Midwest,
they travel up to New England beyond just Boston, and they like using
the trains, the very same trains that brought us from place to place
after 9/11, remember, when we could not travel. Thank goodness that we
had some semblance of a national system.
Americans like the freedom to travel. They want to make choices. I
believe it should be the goal of the Department of Transportation to
expand transportation alternatives, not to cut back on those choices.
It was Amtrak that I rode home from Washington on to be with my
constituents to assess the damage at Ground Zero, as well as folks from
both sides of the aisle. It is too important to the American people and
the American economy to settle for anything less than a national
system.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard the presentations about reform. I have
heard no explanations, no alternatives to in any way sustain those
routes that are all in red. So if we took the red away, we have systems
that are not interconnected, and many of those systems are connected to
the intermodal part of transportation, which is what TEA-LU is all
about, which is what TEA-21 was all about, intermodal transportation.
The Amtrak system is part of it, whether we are talking about rail,
whether we are talking about airlines, whatever we are talking about.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment because it does do away
with the reforms that this appropriation subcommittee has imposed on
Amtrak. As I said earlier, I have been on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for some 13 years. I watched for more
than 4 years when they had an Amtrak reform council look at the
operations of Amtrak and come up with recommendations that were made to
Congress; and, sure enough, they ignored those recommendations.
This is a tough business to reform Amtrak and eliminate some of these
politically popular routes. But the cost of those routes, as we have
heard, range from $242 subsidizing per ticket on the Sunset Limited,
some $466 to run the route that we saw here. Some of those go into my
State, Florida. But it is time to reevaluate those routes, and we must
eliminate them if we have to, only by legislation, because the reform
which we have tried to do through an advisory council and commission to
look at this in an independent study, all that has failed.
I do support the President in really drawing a line in the sand and
saying we must impose reforms on Amtrak.
Now, we have heard this analogy, and I chair the Subcommittee on
Aviation, on how much we subsidize aviation. But every ticket that is
sold by Amtrak is subsidized by $49, every single ticket. In aviation
that is not the case, I say to my colleagues. We heard how much money
goes in, but that money is raised by a 7.5 percent ticket tax. The next
time you get your airline ticket, look at 7.5 percent, look at the
other fees. There is a passenger facilitation fee, and that could be
anywhere from a few dollars on up. There is an aviation security fee of
$5. You hear the airlines complaining about how taxed their passengers
are. The passengers are paying their full fare, including a fuel tax.
Amtrak pays no fuel tax, there is no passenger tax, there is no
security fee. There is no contribution. Besides that, they are losing,
on every ticket they sell, an average of $49.
Now, I am a strong supporter of mass transit, high-speed rail, rail
as an alternative; and I do know that some of that has to be
subsidized. I will vote to subsidize this. But a loss of nearly $500 a
ticket, and that is what this amendment would do, will restore all
those losing routes.
Now, why has Amtrak not changed out some of these routes? Let us be a
little candid among friends here. Labor cut sweetheart deals so most of
the Amtrak employees are going to get 7 years' salary and benefits
assistance; some will get 5 years. There is a cost. We cannot eliminate
one single route without paying those benefits that have already been
negotiated. But at some time, we have to pay the piper, and sometimes
we have to cut the losses.
[[Page H5405]]
Now, out in America right now, probably not watching the proceedings
of this House, are millions of Americans who are working hard. It is
hard for me to tell them to go out there and work even harder, maybe
get another part-time job so you can send that money here to
Washington, so we can have them waste it.
When they provide food service and take in a dollar, it costs them
$2. They lost a third of a billion dollars in the past 3\1/2\ years on
food service. When they try to put high-speed rail in, and I am a
strong advocate of high-speed rail, we have neither high-speed and we
do not have service. It is down the tubes. It was going 83 miles an
hour. That is not high-speed service, even by our own standards which
are, under Federal law, 120 miles an hour.
So let us make the reform that is necessary. The chairman and the
subcommittee have done an excellent job in forcing some of these
reforms that are long overdue. Let us defeat this ill-conceived
amendment. Let us reform Amtrak. Let us provide good service, not a
Soviet-style train endurance test for passengers, but modern, high-
speed rail and long-distance service across the United States, and give
service to passengers that do not have that service available, at the
lowest cost to the taxpayers. We can do that.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment, and I will
acknowledge up front I do it rather reluctantly, because I am a huge
proponent of the national rail system and recognize up front the need
for some subsidization, fair and responsible and reasonable
subsidization, as we do in other transportation routes; and a lot of
speakers have addressed that issue and that point.
But just as the last speaker pointed out the inefficiencies in the
system, in the process both at Amtrak and, frankly, how the Federal
Government has provided oversight, I think that passage of this
amendment represents a premature move to acceptance of those
inefficiencies at a point, a critical point, in negotiations that we
cannot do that. Facts are facts, and we have been asking for Amtrak to
reform itself for a number of years. We have not gotten much of a
response. In fact, we have gotten resistance. And the inefficiencies in
the system continue to atrophy downward.
How it really impacts on people, in my district, just outside the
northeast corridor, not part of the corridor, because the tracks are
not owned by Amtrak, there is a continued deterioration; and there is
no Amtrak plan, no Amtrak plan to resolve those issues, putting at risk
an awful lot of people. I know what the chairman is trying to
accomplish in this particular piece of legislation is force Amtrak back
to the table to talk about what needs to be maintained, what is
critical infrastructure, what are critical lines of connection that
have to be in this; and if we simply just say we are going to go on
with business as usual, we continue to promote the atrophy within the
system.
Now, I think at some point in this process, many of these lines that
are eliminated in this particular bill are reinstated before this bill
becomes law. But we ought not to do it just willy-nilly; we ought not
to just give it away. We need to force some people to make some tough
decisions. We need to force some people to live by their commitments of
the past, which they have not thus far. I think this is one of the few
pieces of leverage that the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman
Knollenberg) and this subcommittee will have as we continue to try to
find a way to get to the answers.
Now, we have gone from zero to now $1.2 billion in this bill. That is
a real commitment to Amtrak. It is still, I would suggest, short of
where we need to end up. But let us not just end up there by dealing
away those funds; let us end up there by making sure that we bring
efficiencies to the system.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us posed a double-barrel shotgun blast
to the continuation of Amtrak. One barrel has been dealt with with the
amendment passed earlier by this House restoring funding critically
needed to keep national passenger rail available. But we cannot stop
now. We have to also pass the Brown amendment, because without the
passage of this amendment, investment in the routes denoted in red on
this chart will end. Now, that continues to be the routing for many of
the vast stretches across this country that truly make this a national
rail system.
Coming from the heartland, representing North Dakota, a place of vast
distances and not that many people, I must tell my colleagues that I am
surprised at what I am hearing on the floor of the House, that this is
a national service. Provided, it runs just between populated areas and
short distances, some place for the Northeast, maybe the Southwest; but
the rest of the expanse of this great country, forget about it. Are we
the United States of America, or what?
In North Dakota, what is at stake is the Empire Builder. It is a
route that has been operating for 76 years. This year, it will serve
89,000 North Dakotans. Amtrak links many rural cities and communities
that are not serviceable by airlines. In North Dakota, Amtrak has a
strong record of reliable service. It is an important transportation
option for many North Dakotans and North Dakota businesses.
For the resident of Rugby, North Dakota, seeking to get to Minot, the
regional medical center to attend to their medical needs in the middle
of a cold, January day, or small businesses along the northern route,
Devils Lake, depending upon the transportation option for the shipping
of central materials for that particular business, Amtrak matters and
it matters a great deal to us. In Minot, North Dakota, one station
alone, 29,000 served last year.
Mr. Chairman, in rural America we do not have airports in every
corner, we do not have the same kinds of options that the crowded areas
of this country do, and that is why we need to continue this national
commitment to national passenger rail.
We all have supported taxpayer dollars, and I mean over and above the
ticket tax dollars, that have gone into the highway program. They have
gone into the airport improvement program, and now it is time to do our
proportional share for passenger rail. It is pennies on the dollar
compared to the public subsidy of these other transportation
alternatives. But take it from one from the heartland: passenger rail
matters, and it matters just as much to us as it does in the northeast
corridor.
I urge passage of the Brown amendment. Do not dismantle Amtrak. Do
not take this service away from rural America.
{time} 1500
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I would like to speak in opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
And I would agree with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) that
I, like he, am for high-speed rail. We are for commuter rail that gets
people in high volume areas back to work and forth. But if we want to
preserve Amtrak as a viable entity, I agree also with the gentleman
from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) who said, if you care about
Amtrak, oppose this amendment, because if we do not reform Amtrak, it
is hard for us to be able to afford its survival.
I would just cite the Washington Post editorial of May of this year
where they listed as the first test to whether Amtrak is going to make
it is whether they force the closure of the most uneconomic routes.
That is what this amendment tries to oppose.
The second test, according to the Washington Post, is that Amtrak
needed better management. Better management would recognize this, would
oppose this amendment. We need to stand up for both Amtrak's future and
for our taxpayers. Oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
What is interesting about this amendment is that only 20 percent of
the people are involved in the elimination of these lines, but it is 50
percent of the cost. This is like a stake in the heart of a plan to
establish some reform. You know, unfortunately, our
[[Page H5406]]
national rail service is no longer a source of pride. Amtrak has
suffered mismanagement, irresponsible investments, poor service and a
tremendous backlog of, maintenance that has sunk the system to a new
low.
Amtrak, as we know it, faces tremendous debt while operating in a
fundamentally flawed management system. Amtrak goes back to 1971, and
the conception at that time was to produce it as a for-profit business.
And it was expected to be one within 5 years. Here it is 35 years
later. Guess what, they are in worse shape than ever. As has been
pointed out, unfortunately for the taxpayers, its self-sufficiency is
only a pipe dream. On average, taxpayers will pay a $210 subsidy, even
though you do not think you are paying it, because some pay $466, you
are because the system needs an average of $210 per person. All other
transportation systems in our country are paid for directly. Highways
and aviation are funded through user fees and excise taxes. Rail is the
only passenger transportation mode that relies solely on the generosity
of taxpayers. And this charity is running out.
It is funny, I have not heard one word from anybody who is
complaining about shutting those lines down who is interested in doing
anything locally to provide resources to keep it going. That is an
option. We are not mandating the closure. And the message should be
clear. In a time of flat budgets and large deficits, we cannot afford
the abuse of taxpayer dollars on irresponsible ventures, poor
management and unprofitable services.
I know that reform is never easy. But in Amtrak's case, it is
essential. We have come to the last stop. Amtrak is no longer helping
us move forward. Passenger rail must be reformed, or it will end, be
the end of Amtrak.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Members should be reminded that when yielding to
another under the 5-minute rule the yielding Member must remain on his
feet.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
This is a bit of a surreal debate at this point. To me, the only
logical thing to do with this vote is to vote to strike the section
that eliminates the long-distance routes. I believe that, in large
measure, the vote that was taken earlier was a vote in adding money
back to Amtrak, was a vote to allow Amtrak to operate another year, and
leave the authorizers with a mandate or a very strong signal that they
had to do something and finally get this matter settled through the
normal authorization route.
My chairman, and I know, I respect what he is trying to do. He has
this section which eliminates these long-distance routes that serve the
only passenger rail service in 23 States, with all of those Senators on
the other side of the Capitol and at least 154 of our Members in those
States. And by eliminating those routes, he wishes to force reform of
the system, to force the authorizing system to operate effectively. And
in eliminating those routes, there is such a large cost for the
elimination of the routes that the amount of money that was put in was
simply not adequate to do the job, and so it was going to shut down the
whole of the Amtrak system. I think that that, clearly, is what comes
through as the end result of the way the bill was written.
Now, if we leave the routes in there and no subsidy can be placed on
those routes, then that shuts down those routes and triggers the utter
waste of $360 million a year of costs for abrogating the labor and
other contractual obligations that relate to those routes. It is an
utter waste, and that means, in fact, that I think the chairman is
right. It probably means that then the system is likely to shut down
again because the total amount of money is not going to be adequate.
But the chairman himself has indicated what the actual reform is. The
chairman has pointed out that there is extremely high costs on these
long distance routes through the luxury services, the sleeper services
and the meals services, which cost $300 million or thereabouts to
provide on these routes. So one could have one's cake and eat it, too,
by eliminating that luxury service, those meals and sleeper services on
the long-distance routes, continue to have the long-distance routes
without those costs, which serve a very small group of people, a very
small number of people, and then that process, the amount of money that
was put in the bill would then serve to keep things going for the next
year.
So it seems to me that the logical thing to do would be to strike
these routes and, instead, provide the reforms, not by the bludgeon of
eliminating these routes which triggers that high cost of contractual
changes, rather than doing that, find the reform that is going to
actually keep the national rail system going and allow the amount of
money that was put in to provide that service at a much lower cost than
what presently is the case. So I hope that the amendment will be
adopted and that we will get somewhere to what would be a real reform.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Brown-Menendez-
Rahall amendment aimed at keeping Amtrak on track. This amendment would
strike current bill language that eliminates 15 long-distance trains
and three shorter-distance routes, some of which provide essential
transportation services to rural areas.
In the State of Texas, Amtrak operates one short-distance train, the
Heartland Flyer, and two long-distance, the Sunset Limited and the
Texas Eagle, which services my district.
H.R. 3058 eliminates Texas' only two long-distance routes. The
elimination of these routes would have an adverse effect on Texas
communities that depend on these routes and leave hardworking Texans,
which depend on the $11 million in wages that Amtrak currently
provides, unemployed.
I am fully aware that the money is very tight. We have a war to
finance, and we have big tax cuts for some. But let us do something for
the heartland of the USA.
Further, in certain rural parts of the State, these lines are often
the only transportation alternatives to automobiles. The State of Texas
is experiencing unprecedented population growth. The growth is placing
enormous strain on the State's highway capacity. And all of us know
where that bill is for the last 2 years.
As the construction of new highways becomes less practical, the need
for a comprehensive passenger rail system will continue to grow.
Passenger rail is a component of this Nation's economic and
transportation backbone. Bankrupting and gutting our national passenger
rail system is not the way to go.
I urge my colleagues to renew this body's support for a national rail
passenger system and urge a yes vote on this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this House, just a short while ago, adopted the
LaTourette and Oberstar amendment, the clear intent of which was to
restore passenger service to the routes shown in the map that everybody
has been showing around today, the areas, the routes in red. It was
meant to retain a truly national passenger railroad service.
Without the subsequent amendment of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown), that initial action by the House remains essentially
meaningless, and it means that the only thing that the money would be
used for, which was gained in that LaTourette amendment, would be to
pay shutdown costs to the former employees of the parts of Amtrak that
are being shut down. I do not think that action is going to please
anybody. I do not think it is going to fool anybody. We clearly need
this amendment, and I would urge support for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine
Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if my amendment is not
accepted, millions of passengers will be stranded. Commuters, operators
will be disrupted. Thousands of jobs will be eliminated. States will be
forced to figure out how to pay for new services under already tight
budget restraints. Taxes on freight railroads and their workers would
increase as a result of decreased revenue for the railroad retirement
and unemployment program, and local economies and businesses that
depend on Amtrak services will
[[Page H5407]]
suffer. Save our Nation's passenger rail network. Vote yes for the
Brown-Menendez amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Brown-
Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment, and I offer just a little story.
Because I heard the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver) mention the solution to our problem.
We just passed a very helpful and needed amendment by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) that acknowledged America's commitment to
long-distance rail. But then we have a slight problem. As we have
supported his amendment, we have a sea of red that indicates that
America will be disconnected.
Well, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you a little story. I have traveled
on rail, heavy rail in the early stages of my life as a little girl.
Not only was I not in the luxury seats, I was in the back of the train
or the train designated for one group of people. In addition, I brought
my own bag of food. Now, I might say that I enjoyed that delicious food
that was given to me by my grandmother. But when it comes to saving our
rail system, I believe we might just go back to eliminating the luxury
but providing for the practical. My condition was a predicament of this
society, segregation. But yet, now that we have a full and open
society, we need to be able to continue a full and open transportation
system. Although it notes that Texas may be included in the rail
system, all of the red suggests that we will not be connected because
of the cuts in the rail system.
{time} 1515
So this amendment will eliminate a provision in the bill that
prohibits Amtrak from using funds to operates all 15 of the railroad
long-distance trains, some of which provide essential service to rural
area and three short-distance trains. The amendment will eliminate the
provision that prohibits Amtrak from using the funds to operate these
particular long-distance trains. How can you have a system that
eliminates all of these connecting aspects of our rail system? That is
the benefit of rail. That gives us, the consumer, the choice: driving,
bus service, flying, or, yes, the train service.
And if I might add to the esthetics of train travel, how many
families have testified to the value of traveling together as a family
along America's highways and byways, seeing America through the eyes of
a train?
By yet there is more to the train service because some of our rural
communities and smaller cities do not have access to any kind of
interstate travel except for train travel. They do not have close
enough airports. They may not have bus service. They may not have
access to automobiles. And with the fuel prices, I will assure that you
there will be many who will fall into this category.
The Brown-Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment is a good commonsense
amendment. It plays right into the hands of the LaTourette amendment,
the funding; but it also says that it is important to serve America.
Why not cut the luxury service? Why not encourage families to bring
their own home-cooked meals? Whatever the choice may be, bag lunches,
however it is. But I would assure you that most Americans would rather
have the kind of travel that is necessary for them to move about this
Nation than some hot-cooked meal on a train that does not come to their
doorstop.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Texas will be mighty
lonely. Even though it may be one of those States that has the service,
we are disconnected because the routes going through our State will be
disconnected and we will have no way of connecting to the rest of
America. Support this amendment and give back to America its ability to
travel.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I rise in opposition to this
amendment. Congressman Ron Packard, a former Member here, was a very
strong supporter of Amtrak. He pushed it every year that he was
chairman on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He also
realized that we had to reform Amtrak.
If we do not push the Department of Defense to make changes, they
will never do it. This week this body made several votes to send a
message. Let me give you a good example. I think the total outlay to
Saudi Arabia was $24,000, but they voted to cut off funding for Saudi
Arabia. Why? It is a message to keep them moving in a right direction.
I read recently where if you took Amtrak from Florida to San Diego,
the ticket is about $135, but the Federal subsidy for that is $477.
What we are trying to do is send Amtrak a strong message that someway
they have got to reform.
Sleeper cars, now, that trip from Florida to San Diego would take 71
hours. Someone that is a senior citizen is not going to sit in a chair
for 71 hours. It costs $100 million a year, the food service. $50
million it loses. Let us offer it up for bid and privatize it and at
least go some of these reforms. This particular amendment does the
opposite. It allows Amtrak to go on without any message to do just as
they have. They have even said that ridership is up. Well, then, let us
make it profitable for them so we can make a bigger and better Amtrak
instead of one that takes billions of dollars just in subsidies to
fund.
I am not opposed to the subsidy. Look at the Metro here in
Washington, D.C. It costs a lot of money. We subsidize it. But now put
all that traffic on the highway and see what it costs with pollution,
with extra drive time and so on.
Yes, we do need a cross-country Amtrak, but we definitely need to
send them a message. That is why I oppose this amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Brown-
Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment to save the 18 Amtrak routes that
would be cut in this bill represented with these red lines across the
country.
This is a mode of transportation for millions of Americans who have
chosen it as their form to get connected to other parts of this
country.
Now, if the language in the bill stands, notwithstanding that the
previous amendment added money to Amtrak's overall budget, but if we
allow the rest of the language in the bill to stand, Amtrak would be
eviscerated as a national rail passenger service, as a national rail
passenger service from coast to coast, one country, the United States
of America, the United States of America.
The map shows it all very clearly. All long-distance routes would be
gone. The 23 States in yellow would lose Amtrak service. However,
nearly every State would be affected by the loss of some of these
routes, including my home State of New Jersey. And even if Amtrak were
still able to run its short-distance trains, States with Amtrak service
would still suffer.
And there are a lot of places, we keep hearing about these air
traffic ticket fares. Well, they are very selective and they also do
not speak to the volume that there are a lot of places in the country
where you cannot get to that location through a direct flight or even
sometimes through a connector flight. Amtrak brings the Nation
together. And you cannot starve a horse and ask it to run like a
thoroughbred. That is exactly what has happened to Amtrak time and time
again.
Those who starve it then come here and say how inefficient it is, but
it cannot function if it does not get the right resources in the first
place.
Now, these long-distance routes are not just a lifeline for people in
rural towns out west, although certainly Fargo, North Dakota; Minot,
North Dakota; Cut Bank, Montana; Elko, Nevada; Trinidad, Colorado;
Needles, California; Yazoo City, Mississippi; Newton, Kansas, and many
more are what you are seeking to eliminate by eliminating these routes.
Those people in America, small-town America, rural America, they
deserve the opportunity to be connected to the
[[Page H5408]]
rest of the country as well, because these long-distance routes are not
just the lifeline for people in the rural town out west who depend on
trains like the Empire Builder and the Southwest Chief to be able get
around the country.
This is about thousands of people, for example, in New Jersey who
take the train to Atlanta or Florida each year. It is about tens of
thousands of people who take the train from New York to Chicago. It is
about maintaining the critical redundancy of our intercity
transportation system, the importance of which we saw the days after
September 11 when our airplanes were grounded, and it was Amtrak that
was still connecting the Nation together.
Eliminating the long-distance routes will not solve Amtrak's
financial problems. The Department of Transportation's Inspector
General estimated that getting rid of all of these routes would only
save Amtrak about $300 million, but because of mandatory labor
severance payouts, it might be several years before Amtrak actually
saves a single dime. In the meantime, the severance payouts would
strain Amtrak's finances, starve good areas like the northeast corridor
of essential maintenance money.
This is about ultimately degrading a national passenger system, a
system that is critical after September 11.
The amendment is about our fundamental commitment to a national rail
passenger network, a commitment that is an essential lifeline for
people throughout the country, enhances our national security, eases
congestion on our highways and our airports, and gives small and mid-
size businesses the chance to sell their products and services at
different points throughout the country.
Vote for the Brown-Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment. Make sure we
stay together as one country.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown) for her extraordinary work on this issue. She is very
effective, and I want to thank her very much for her work.
Mr. Chairman, let me join the chorus of support for this amendment.
This amendment will eliminate a provision of the bill that prohibits
Amtrak from using funds to operate all 15 of the railroad's long-
distance trains, some of which provide essential services to rural
areas, such as my rural district in eastern North Carolina.
This amendment will save our national passenger rail network by
ensuring that 23 States, 258 local communities, and over 4 million rail
passengers continue to benefit from Amtrak's service.
Mr. Chairman, Amtrak has been there. Amtrak has stood the test of
time, and it must be preserved. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Amtrak. I
support the Brown-Menendez-Rahall Amendment, which we are debating now,
and I also strongly support the amendment offered by Mr. LaTourette and
Mr. Oberstar, which the House considered earlier.
Trains have been, and continue to be, an integral part of our
Nation's transportation system. Every year, millions of Americans use
Amtrak and our Nation's railways to travel throughout our great
country, removing cars from our congested highways and travelers from
our crowded airports. In my home State of Missouri, over 400,000 people
used Amtrak last year.
However, despite this heavy volume of travel, one of the routes that
would be eliminated by this appropriations bill passes through Missouri
and serves the city of St. Louis.
It is vital that we stop the elimination of these routes and restore
full funding to Amtrak so that it may continue to provide the same
level of service to the people of the United States for generations to
come.
I urge my colleagues to support this essential component of our
Nation's transportation infrastructure and support the Brown-Menendez-
Rahall amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my fellow cosponsors--
Ranking Member Brown, Congressmen Menendez and Cummings--for bringing
this issue before the House.
Today represents another attempt to derail Amtrak and the essential
transportation services it provides to millions of Americans,
particularly rural Americans, across the country. The 18 routes the
Appropriations Committee has proposed to eliminate would leave nearly
4\1/2\ million Americans stranded without needed rail service in 23
States, including my home State of West Virginia.
Unilaterally eliminating these routes is not prudent, and would deal
a significant blow to our rural communities.
I urge my colleagues to support the Brown-Menendez-Rahall-Cummings
Amendment that would save rail service to rural America.
A vote in favor of our amendment is not a vote just in support of
Amtrak, it is a vote for the millions of Americans who depend on rail
service to meet their transportation needs.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine
Brown) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
Page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $100,000,000)''.
Page 80, line 19, after the first dollar amount insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)'' and after the second dollar
amount insert ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment to address two critical problems: preventing wasteful
government spending and at the same time giving our States more
resources they need.
My amendment will take $100 million in unnecessary government
subsidies from Amtrak and redirect it to HUD's Homeless Assistance
Grants to help States combat homelessness.
Mr. Chairman, I know we have just completed a very long debate on
Amtrak, but creating a budget is all about setting and sticking to
priorities and tightening your belt when you need to. In that process,
I think it is important that we get the maximum return that we can from
our Federal taxpayer dollars.
As we know, the President recommended eliminating funding for Amtrak
unless they reform themselves, and we originally proposed $550 million;
but now we are at near $1.2 billion. However, instead of being
thankful, Amtrak President David Gunn claimed the impact of $550
million in Federal support would be the same as getting zero.
Where else but Washington can you hear someone complain that if you
only get $550 million that they would be as well off as getting
nothing.
This is not about the northeast corridor, which is very sustainable.
It is about Amtrak's refusal to reform itself. Refusal to eliminate
lines like the disastrous Sunset Limited that takes from 6 days to trek
from Los Angeles to Orlando, costing taxpayers as much or more than it
would cost to buy each passenger an airplane ticket.
Amtrak uses funding from its profitable areas in a forlorn attempt to
prop up these lines. Mr. Chairman, this is simply unacceptable.
Instead of dumping more money into a failed Amtrak system, I propose
that we take some of that money and give it to those who can actually
use it, State housing agencies trying to end homelessness through HUD's
Homeless Assistance Grants program.
The Homeless Assistance Grants program was created to fund HUD's four
major programs that funds housing services for the homeless. These four
programs form the core of HUD's Continuum of Care strategy to work with
local governments and service providers to combat homelessness. They
help States renovate and rehabilitate buildings for use for emergency
shelters, provide transitional and permanent housing for homeless
families with children and those with disabilities, and provide
assistance to homeless adults who have serious mental illness or
chronic substance abuse problems.
{time} 1530
The bill before us today grants $1.34 billion for homeless grants,
but it is
[[Page H5409]]
$100 million short of the President's budget request.
Mr. Chairman, while some can debate whether or not this is the best
and most efficient strategy for fighting homeless, there is no doubt
these programs can help improve the lives of individuals in need more
than continuing to throw even more money at Amtrak.
For States like Minnesota, which has a 10-year program to end long-
term homelessness, the Homeless Assistance Grants program constitutes
the bulk of matching Federal aid to support this goal. Adding $100
million to this program, according to one estimate, increases the
number of housing units available to fight homelessness by up to 3,400
for a period of 4 years, or 13,500 unit-years of assistance.
I think it would be beyond irresponsible to deny the funding these
programs need to work only to continue to prop up an Amtrak system that
has been a neverending black hole of wasted taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about curbing wasteful government
spending and giving States the resources they need to fight challenges
they face like homelessness, we must take action to ensure not another
dollar is thrown away on Amtrak when it can be put to good use.
I urge all Members to take a stand against waste and in favor of
helping those in need. Vote for the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Hallelujah. Hallelujah. We have finally found a Republican who cares
about any kind of a poor people program. Hallelujah. What has the world
come to? Let me tell you some of the things that you scuttled for poor
people before you started with crocodile tears on this amendment. Let
me just list some of the programs for poor people you have scuttled
over the last 4 years.
The earned income tax credit: You only qualify for it if you make
less than $27,000 a year, but oh, you had to have a major effort on
that side of the aisle to cut it.
Housing: How many times have you come to this floor cutting housing
programs for low-income, squeezing housing programs for elderly, low-
income?
Dental care programs: How many times in the Labor, Health, Education
bill have you opposed efforts to try to increase dental care service?
What did you do just last week in the Labor HHS bill when you scuttled
the community services block grant, when you savaged it? That is a
program that many rural communities use to help the homeless, to help
the low-income.
What did you do about low-income heating assistance? Last week, you
cut it by $200 million bucks.
What did you do about the minimum wage? How many times have you tried
to block an increase in the minimum wage?
I just have to say, I am thunderstruck. I am amazed we have finally
found a Republican who would put something on the Floor to help poor
people, except that is not the real intent; is it?
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is rather convenient that we
have a newfound concern for the poor at a time when, by expressing
concern for the poor, it facilitates the scuttling of a national
transportation system. So I just have to say, I do not know how this
amendment's going to go, but I have no doubt that the purpose of the
amendment is simply to scuttle what is left of our ability to provide a
national transportation system, and if, for a few moments, the poor
people of this country are fooled into thinking that the other side
actually cares about them, well, this is politically so much better for
you; is it not?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have the revival gusto that the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) does, but I do want to oppose strenuously this
amendment.
We had, for a long time now, rather a vigorous discussion on the
Amtrak system, and I do not know if the gentleman from Minnesota was
present during that discussion, but when I hear the $550 that Amtrak
should be thankful for, the evidence was pretty clear in the statements
that we gave that that $550 was worse than a shutdown number; it was
bankruptcy number, because Amtrak with its obligations for labor costs,
almost $400 million, and for its debt service, almost $300 million, it
would have forced the system into bankruptcy, ending not these long-
distance routes, which were the subject of the last amendment, but all
Amtrak service in all of the United States, including the northeast
corridor and service out west.
What this amendment does not allow us to do, now that we have
squeaked the Amtrak number back up, it is not $1.2 billion. It is
$1.176 billion which is below last year's spending, which is $1.244
billion. To take $100 million now after a lot of hard work, quite
frankly, by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to identify
some hard decisions for offsets, but that is the environment we find
ourselves in, but we were successful in doing that, breathing new life
into the Amtrak program, giving David Gunn the opportunity to implement
the plan that he just sent to us on Capitol Hill in April of this year.
Are we so impatient that we have to identify long-distance routes and
we have to take a meat axe approach to the Amtrak budget that we cannot
let some of the reforms work?
David Gunn gets it. He gets that there is a problem with the food
service, and he needs to do something about it. He gets the fact that
the Acela high-speed train system has some difficulty with disk brakes
that were manufactured in a poor fashion, and he needs to do something
about it.
Those of us on the authorizing committee get it, and that is why we
have already had two hearings dealing with difficulties at Amtrak. The
next phase will be to invite people with all the good ideas, and
everybody in this chamber has good ideas about how to fix something,
anybody that has a good idea on how to reform Amtrak, to invite the
States to participate in providing quality inter city train service in
this country, will be invited to appear before our subcommittee and
also the full committee to engage in that discussion.
But this amendment, I have to say, really is a wolf in sheep's
clothing because its purports to help homeless people. Everybody in the
Chamber I bet wants to help homeless people, but the real intent, I
would suggest, is to take $100 million away from Amtrak that we have
just been able to restore. It was unanimous. It was a voice vote.
Everybody supported it on the last occasion, and that, again, puts us
into a bankruptcy situation. It is bad policy.
Every other industrialized Nation in the world recognizes that
passenger rail service is something worth keeping. The United States
Congress, or some of us, seem to be the only body in the world that
think that it is not worth saving.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, last week, we had a rather unpleasant debate on this
Floor about what we should be doing vis-a-vis religious conversion. The
gentleman from Wisconsin was involved, but once again, he is today
dealing with religious conversion, but today, he was welcoming
converts. He was welcoming those who for many years have whittled away
and chopped away and hacked away at our efforts to help low-income
people, and now he has, as he said, found some people who understand
it.
Some of us must tell my colleagues, we are a little skeptical. To be
told by some of the supporters of this amendment that I and others who
have been fighting so hard to prevent these savage cuts in housing for
low-income people that we are somehow insensitive to the homeless is
like being called silly by the Three Stooges.
The fact is that there has been a sustained attack on everything the
Federal Government has tried to do to provide housing, and it is not
just in the past.
The Committee on Financial Services, on which I serve, reported out
by an overwhelming vote a bill which included a provision which would
take some of the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not tax
dollars but profits from corporations which get great Federal
advantages, so we felt entitled to do this, and we were following a
precedent set years ago with the Federal Home Loan Bank. We said, let
us take 5 percent of their after-tax profits and help build houses for
homeless people. It would produce an
[[Page H5410]]
amount five or six times each year what this amendment deals with. You
want to help the homeless, you have to try and build them homes.
Well, we have been told by some of the most conservative members of
this body that that is a terrible thing, and we have been told that
they are going to try and stop the bill from even coming up.
So, if Members want to genuinely help the homeless, there are at
least two pending ways to do it. One, cut back on Amtrak. Two, let us
take a percentage of the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a
time-tested program, a concept endorsed I understand by Jack Kemp, a
former Secretary of HUD, back when the Secretary of HUD was even on the
Republican side, cared about housing, and let us go that way. Now, we
say, well, but let us take it out of Amtrak.
I wish this concern for the poor had been around when we were doing
some earlier bills. As I understand it, we voted a significant amount
of money to send people to Mars. We cannot find enough money for the
homeless so we have to take it out of Amtrak. Well, would it not have
been better to take it out of the trip to Mars? I mean, literally, this
Congress voted to start spending, at least this House did, to send
people to Mars, and at the same time, we talk about, well, but we have
to cut Amtrak to help the homeless. Where was the concern for the
homeless when you were going to Mars?
Mr. Chairman, there are many ways to help the homeless. Many of us,
in a bipartisan way on the Committee on Financial Services, and I would
note that the gentleman from Ohio who just spoke was one of those
Republicans on the Committee on Financial Services who voted with us on
that proposal for affordable housing. He understands and voted, as did
others on that committee from both parties, that there are better ways
to do this.
I think, frankly, that we have done enough damage to low-income
people. We are now giving true meaning to the phrase, let us add insult
to injury; let us use the lowest-income people in this country as a
pawn in this effort to dismantle a decent rail system.
I welcome them, as does the gentleman from Wisconsin, this newfound
support for the poor. I am available to help people in a far less
destructive fashion to let them learn how to do it. I understand, when
you are new to something, you are not always good at it. When you are
new at helping poor people, it may not come out too good. Some of us
who have been trying this for a long time are available for
instruction.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that, in the bill that
we have before us, that the appropriation for homeless assistance
grants is increased by about 8 percent over last year's, the 2005
appropriation. It is up by $100 million over the 2005 appropriation,
but that is almost two-thirds of the way to what had been the budget
request.
Now, there are many, many places in this bill that the budget request
by the President is under two-thirds of the amount that had been
requested in the budget by the President, and this is one where we are
already at that level, at least. The increase of $100 million and an 8
percent increase in the budget is a very good set of funding, given the
kind of allocation that the subcommittee was given. That, first of all.
Second of all, I point out that the gentleman from Minnesota who
spoke earlier for retaining the elimination of the long-distance
routes, which carries with it a cost of a total waste of money, carries
with it a cost of $369 million which has been estimated as the cost of
shutting down those routes. It seems to me that it would be far better
to retain the routes, to retain the routes over the long haul and to
make the savings of $300 million in other places in the high costs of
those routes which we know how to do and still have the service and
still have the national passenger rail system.
However, by the amendment that the gentleman offers, what he does is
to now, after the previous decision adding $600 million roughly to the
Amtrak, he takes $100 million of that out and puts them back in the
position where the amount of money is not adequate to keep the whole
system running for the year.
So this is really a counterproductive amendment from the Amtrak point
of view. It puts them back in the position of not having enough money
to run for the year, and at the same time, he has voted and spoken even
for making certain that we waste the $370 million or thereabouts on the
shutdown of those long-distance routes.
{time} 1545
So I would hope that we would not adopt this amendment. I think that
there are other ways that we could do that that would normally be for
homeless assistance grants, except that there is already a very large
increase in the homeless assistance grant, and in so doing we then
return Amtrak to an untenable position. So I hope the amendment is not
adopted.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is the most discouraging part of this discussion
that we have had this afternoon. Everybody has been civil. I think
everybody has attempted to be nonpartisan, which is how it should be on
such an important piece of legislation. Even if we eliminated all the
long-distance routes in Amtrak, we would save $300 million. But these
savings do not occur in the first year because these are expenses that
are accrued. This is not acceptable.
What is most reprehensible is to not only deal with the facts but
make those who support this legislation of returning the $1.2 billion
to its rightful place, that we somehow are going to be on the side of
those depriving those who are homeless of necessary resources. That, to
me, is despicable.
I really want to say a different word, but I respect the institution
and I respect the gentleman from Minnesota. But this is horrible. We
ought to take a good look at ourselves. We ought to take a look at how
many letters we sign, how many parts of the petitions over the years we
have come back to this Congress with to say, ``Please restore the
dollars for the homeless. Please restore the dollars for the
downtrodden.'' Neither party is privy to virtue. Neither party is privy
to who cares more about the homeless. But do not try to take it out of
something that you know we have been fighting for that is necessary.
Now, I have an idea. Why do we not do away with the long-distance
route the Carolinian? That is 305,000 passengers. Let us wipe it out
tomorrow. You tell those people in Raleigh and Richmond and Washington,
D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia, you tell them we are taking the
route off because we think there are more productive routes and that
this is the least productive. You write the letter and put your
signature on it and tell them that. You put your signature on that.
We, as a body, must do for the homeless together, and we as a body
must do for those who ride the trains all over this country. You have
seen enough of the map. You have seen enough of those routes that go
everywhere and every place. And if we are going to have a system of
intermodal transportation in this country, we all have to pull
together.
No one denies there should be some changes in Amtrak. I have fought
for them myself. But do not stand there and tell me that I am not
responding to the homeless. I take exception to that. You are pointing
at me. You are not making a general statement. I am not going to let
you get away with making a general statement that those of us on this
side of the aisle and those of you on this side of the aisle do not
care about the homeless.
So you have done, I think, a disservice to both sides of the aisle
when you suggest that we can take a little off here and put it over
there. This is not checkers. This is the real stuff. This is the real
thing, and we need an intermodal system. We need a system of national
transportation started by President Nixon in 1971.
I will end on that note.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I join all our colleagues in asking us to come to our
senses with reference to dealing with matters pertaining to the
homeless. We talk an awful lot, and correctly so here in this
institution, about homeless people and veterans. The connection seems
[[Page H5411]]
to get lost in this particular argument that a significant number of
the homeless are people who are former soldiers who once protected all
of us in this country.
I shudder to think what is going to happen psychologically to some
who are presently in Afghanistan and in Iraq when they return home. I
suspect that we will see them, not all, but a lot of them, on corners,
like we see some of the Vietnam veterans and we saw some of the Korean
veterans and some of the Desert Storm veterans.
All of us want to assure that the homeless are properly cared for.
Now, then, to say that the money to take care of them should come out
of an intermodal system that is vital to our Nation's transportation is
a bit disingenuous and, in many respects, is harmful to our overall
structure.
Let me ask everybody to think about September 12, after the
devastating impact of terrorism here on September 11. The entire air
system of the United States of America was grounded. I have not heard
the argument here from many of my colleagues on either side of the
aisle that transportation, the intermodal system, becomes a national
security matter.
Assume for the moment that those that would have Amtrak not operate,
and I am not here to suggest that there are not necessary reforms
within that rail system, and I believe we all know what they are, and I
think a lot of us know how to help them achieve it, but as a national
security matter, if by chance we did not have a passenger rail system
of consequence in this Nation and we suffer yet another attack like we
did on September 11, then we add to our interstate highway system the
number of things that need to be transported and individuals who have
necessary business.
I cannot begin to tell you the number of Congress people that had to
go up that corridor on Amtrak to do the business of this Nation. Please
look at it realistically. Do not do the homeless this way and do not do
Amtrak this way. Let us come together in a bipartisan fashion and do
something that we have not done well around here, and that is work
together to better Amtrak and to assure that no one in this great
Nation of ours is homeless.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just say that the Republicans are
very good at talking out of both sides of their mouths. Because as far
as I am concerned, they practice what I call reverse Robin Hood:
robbing from the poor and working people to give tax breaks to the
rich. Not to Amtrak, but to the rich.
So let us be clear. This is not about whether or not we support the
homeless. I have never not voted to support the homeless. In fact, one-
third of the people that are homeless are veterans. They are veterans.
And we do not adequately fund the veterans appropriations. All of a
sudden you discovered that we are $1 billion short for the veterans. We
have been saying all along, all of the independent budgets, that we are
$3 billion.
So do not come up here and try to act Miss High and Mighty as far as
this amendment is concerned. This is about Amtrak and whether or not we
are going to have a National Transportation System in this country. It
is clear that you have Republicans over there that do not support a
National Transportation System, and we are going to have an opportunity
to put it on the board.
The ink is not even dry. They have not even printed the amendment
when you come up here to take $100 million from Amtrak. Let us not kid
ourselves. This amendment is not about the homeless; this is about
taking another bite at the apple. The House voted to fund Amtrak at
$1.178 billion. Let us do not just start over again.
We have heard about the homeless. When do the Republicans support the
homeless? Look at the budget. Over and over again, look at the record
as to how you stand as far as the poor people of this country. In fact,
we do not even use that word around here. Not poor people. We do not
care anything about them. But transportation generates jobs and
opportunity for the community, and that is what the question is on the
table: Do we support a national rail system?
Do not be confused about the person and the amendment. The question
is whether or not the American people support the foolishness that you
keep bringing to the floor of this House. Eighty-one percent of the
polls say that the Congress is not in tune with the views and values of
the American people. Well, you can fool some of the people some of the
time, but you cannot fool them all of the time.
I support funding programs for homeless, but I am going to vote
against your amendment because I support a national rail transportation
system.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, first allow me to thank my subcommittee
chairman and his staff for being so extraordinarily cooperative and
bipartisan in word and deed when it came to the needs of everyone on
our subcommittee, Republican and Democrat. We on our side of the aisle
believe there was not a sufficient budgetary allocation to our
Subcommittee on Transportation. But within the confines of what we were
given under the budget resolution, I believe that our chairman and his
staff, my ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver),
and his staff put together a wonderful bill, which needed help on
Amtrak, which both sides of the aisle fixed about an hour ago.
So it does pain me somewhat to find out that there is an effort now
to undo the solution that would have helped us keep intact a national
rail system. A national rail system. Is that some wild idea that we
just have here in America? No. They have it all over the world. All
over Europe. China is investing tens of billions of dollars in their
rail system, their infrastructure. Japan. Talk about rail system. They
have the bullet trains. Where we here in the United States of America
are struggling along with trains whose brake systems failed on these
antiquated rail beds, et cetera. We are the greatest country in the
world, and we are not keeping up with our infrastructure needs. That is
wrong.
They say we are falling behind in education to all kinds of
countries, India, China, other countries around the world, because we
are not investing in the education infrastructure needs. And now there
is this amendment to take away money that would have helped us try to
keep some of our transportation infrastructure.
My colleagues, if you cannot move people, if you cannot move goods
around your country, you are going to be a second-rate country. And how
we got to be the first-rate country that we are is because our parents
and grandparents did what it took to build an infrastructure, a world-
class infrastructure of transportation. Now the majority party wants to
destroy our national transportation infrastructure when it comes to
passenger rail?
We have an airline system that the majority wants to subsidize, and
has subsidized. So has the minority. Both sides of the aisle. We
subsidize the roads and highways, superhighways all over America. Why
can we not then subsidize passenger rail in America as they subsidize
passenger rail all over the world?
{time} 1600
Because they want to privatize it. They want to privatize Social
Security. They want to privatize rail. They want to privatize the
Federal Government workforce. They want to privatize Medicare
prescription drugs. They want to privatize the IRS. Did Members know
that? They are contracting out the IRS to collect money from taxpayers.
Private companies they are hiring, when the solution is simply: Give
our chairman the power, the ability to reform our system. Maybe we need
a separate capital account to maintain the rail beds and improve the
stations, as well as an operating account. Make the reforms necessary,
but we cannot do it on the cheap.
It is like you have three houses: One for airplanes, one for roads,
and one for rail, and people live in those houses.
The house for roads, we pay the mortgage and provide money to fix the
roof and keep the sewer system alive.
The same with airlines. We pay for the mortgage and keep the roof up
and all of structures and systems intact.
[[Page H5412]]
But when it comes to the rail, the house of rail that the Republicans
want to build, yes, they will pay most of the mortgage, but not all.
But no money for the roof that is falling down. No money for the water
system that is decaying and bringing lead-filled water into the home.
They say, if you managed your home budget better, rail system, that
would be enough. Yes, maybe the rail system does not manage their money
100 percent as well as we would like, and that is why we need reforms;
but we have to give them the money to fix the roof. We have to give
them the money to fix the trains, fix the stations, and fix the rail
beds, and have enough money to operate the trains safely, especially
when there are threats of terrorism facing our railroads, and
especially given the real world possibility of horrible incidents
occurring.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Rothman was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, we need three different kinds of national
transportation systems in America: Airlines; highways for cars and
trucks; and rail for freight and passenger service.
That is only if we want to be a first-class country. That is only if
we want to be a first-class country, because we could give up that
status and be a second-rate country, and then this amendment would fit
right in. Just toss our national rail transportation network into the
garbage. We do not need it because we want to be a second-class
country.
Not on my watch, not without my objection. Reform, yes. We have
Members on both sides of this aisle, people of goodwill and intentions
who want reform, but we cannot starve the patient and expect it to live
and run a marathon. We cannot tell the homeowner, We will give you
almost as much as you need for your mortgage, but nothing for the roof
falling down. It cannot be done.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
reject this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot attribute good intentions to my good friend.
I do not know his heart. And certainly there are homeless Americans,
and the numbers are growing. Unemployment in America is soaring. The
money spent for the war is ongoing. And when we begin to look at the
landscape, more and more Americans are unemployment and underemployed.
Forty-four million Americans are uninsured.
But here is what you call borrowing from a poor Peter to pay a
devastated Paul. Homelessness in America needs its own special
attention. In fact, I wish we were not under a massive budget cut, the
low ebbing, if you will, of funding America's greatest needs.
I would hope the gentleman would join me and the colleagues that have
spoken and really address the questions of homelessness. I would
venture to say we can almost spend a billion dollars to provide housing
for Americans.
But when it comes to taking money from an already crippled system
that really assists the poorest of Americans many times in getting from
place to place, we are not gaining, we are only losing.
In the midst of this fight and debate, there are many cities who are
fighting for more light rail dollars. The city of Houston has been to
be one. We are being frustrated by the new formulas that have been
generated only because we do not have the money. I want to see the
system in Washington, D.C., get the billions-plus they need for their
light rail system, but because of the fact that we are out of money,
cities and rural areas across America in fact are suffering in terms of
expanding and growing their light rail system with artificial capping
and victimizing those citizens who are needing service.
We are in a battle right now to get rail to minority communities in
Houston that were promised it, and they are not able to get it right
now because of formula cuts.
I would like to be able to take that money out of Amtrak and provide
for light rail. I hope we will find a way to solve our problem, but in
the sense of collegiality or recognizing that we have a crisis, I know
we cannot cripple Amtrak any further.
I hope, my good friend, as they say, we will lock arms together and
fight the problem of homelessness. I hope you will join us by adding
dollars to the section 8 underfunded allotment that we have. I hope the
gentleman will join in adding dollars for emergency home repair for
senior citizens who live in dilapidated housing all over America.
But we cannot afford to take $100 million from someone who is
crippled, as Amtrak is, and stifle transportation across America; and
then, if you will, give money to a poor Paul, and that is for the
homeless.
We want a collective, comprehensive effort that will really attack
the question of homelessness. Might I say that homelessness also goes
to societal concerns: Addiction, unemployment, lack of education. It
just does not get solved with $100 million for those who are homeless
and veterans who are suffering.
So I think this amendment bears consideration only because I do not
judge the gentleman's heart, but we should oppose it because we need a
more comprehensive response, and we cannot undermine an already broken
system of heavy rail that people are needing to survive. And for those
of us who are still fighting for light rail, we certainly need a
lifeline. And obviously, we all need an infusion of dollars to provide
for a comprehensive solution. I hope we will work together for that.
For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy)
will be postponed.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer an amendment, but I do want to
speak on this bill. First of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver) for their hard work on this bill.
The last amendment demonstrates the folly of the Republican fiscal
policies and the Republican budget. There are simply insufficient
resources to cover the responsibilities, not the wants, but the
responsibilities that we have. I want to speak about one of those.
I am pleased that the bill before us recognizes the importance of
continuing our investment in helping States reform their election
systems. This bill sensibly provides $15.8 million to the new Election
Assistance Commission so it can fulfill the high expectations Congress
intended when it passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
I am personally gratified that the bill's accompanying report urges
the EAC to set aside $250,000 for the HAVA college program, an
innovative program that encourages college students all over the Nation
to enlist as nonpartisan poll workers.
But, Mr. Chairman, this bill falls short of what HAVA requires.
Almost 3 years after HAVA was enacted, Congress has yet to carry out
all its election reform obligations and promises to the States. I am
especially disappointed the bill does not provide the remaining $800
million we owe the States to upgrade their voting machines, provide
voter and pollworker training, and improve voting machinery technology.
I have not offered an amendment because there is not $800 million to
take from one of the objects in this bill to an obligation that we
have, so I am not offering an amendment. Moreover, starting on January
1, HAVA requires, and I want my friends, particularly on the Republican
side of the aisle, who have been properly very concerned about unfunded
mandates. They have talked a lot about unfunded mandates. I agree with
you on unfunded mandates.
This bill, HAVA, required States to spend money and it requires them
to
[[Page H5413]]
have every voter online with the local precinct in statewide
registration offices. That is expensive. It will help elections, but it
is expensive. These systems, which will cost States tens of millions of
dollars to install and maintain, will go a long way toward improving
the accuracy and reliability of registration rolls and reduce fraud,
something we all can agree on.
Today, Congress has appropriated $3 billion of the $3.8 billion
promised in HAVA, roughly 78 percent of what was promised. That sum
represents an important down payment to the States, and I thank the
Speaker, the former chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for their strong support in
securing this money. I might say that the administration was supportive
of this as well. This was a bipartisan effort.
However, we clearly have not carried out our promise. I happen to
believe that a promise only partially fulfilled is a promise
unfulfilled. For those who would say appropriating 78 percent is
enough, I would suggest to them that they ought to talk to their State
administrators who are not able to get the money that we are requiring
them, hear me, requiring them to spend.
The principal cosponsors spent considerable time estimating how much
it would cost the States to fulfill all of the mandates prescribed in
the bill. We consulted State and local election officials, the
Congressional Research Service and the then-Government Accounting
Office, among other authorities, before deciding $3.8 billion would
provide the States with the resources necessary for comprehensive
reform.
Indeed, there is reason to believe we underestimated what it would
cost. Some credible reports estimated the cost will actually be over $6
billion. At a time when we are spending $1 billion a week building a
viable democracy in Iraq, money which I have supported, an objective
that I think is important, we can and must find it in ourselves to fund
our own democratic infrastructure so that no eligible voter is ever
refused the right to vote through administrative or mechanical error.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, from 1789 to 2002, the Federal Government
got a free ride from the States in the administration of elections. We
did not pay a nickel to elect any Member of Congress, any United States
Senator, any President, or on running elections.
If we care about the quality and credibility of our election system,
we must strive in the months ahead to provide the remaining $800
million.
Mr. Chairman, I hope you work with me. I intend to work with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ney) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in accomplishing this objective. It is an
important objective to meet our promises and not have unfunded
mandates, and to make sure that America's elections are run in a
fashion that will continue to be an example for the rest of the world
and the pride of our own country.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill through page 47, line 19, be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through page 47, line 19, is as
follows:
Administrative Provision--Federal Railroad Administration
Sec. 140. The Secretary may purchase promotional items of
nominal value for use in public outreach activities to
accomplish the purposes of 49 U.S.C. 20134: Provided, That
the Secretary shall prescribe guidelines for the
administration of such purchases and use.
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative Expenses
For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal
Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of
title 49, United States Code, $12,000,000: Provided, That no
more than $80,000,000 of budget authority shall be available
for these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds
available not to exceed $989,000 shall be available for the
Office of the Administrator; not to exceed $7,284,000 shall
be available for the Office of Administration; not to exceed
$4,140,000 shall be available for the Office of the Chief
Counsel; not to exceed $1,276,000 shall be available for the
Office of Communication and Congressional Affairs; not to
exceed $7,916,000 shall be available for the Office of
Program Management; not to exceed $7,123,000 shall be
available for the Office of Budget and Policy; not to exceed
$4,712,000 shall be available for the Office of Demonstration
and Innovation; not to exceed $3,113,000 shall be available
for the Office of Civil Rights; not to exceed $4,155,000
shall be available for the Office of Planning; not to exceed
$21,408,000 shall be available for regional offices; and not
to exceed $17,884,000 shall be available for the central
account: Provided further, That the Administrator is
authorized to transfer funds appropriated for an office of
the Federal Transit Administration: Provided further, That no
appropriation for an office shall be increased or decreased
by more than a total of 5 percent during the fiscal year 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 any funding
transferred from the central account shall be submitted for
approval to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided or limited in this Act may be used to create a
permanent office of transit security under this heading:
Provided further, That of the funds in this Act available for
the execution of contracts under section 5327(c) of title 49,
United States Code, $2,000,000 shall be reimbursed to the
Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General
for costs associated with audits and investigations of
transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed
guideway systems: Provided further, That upon submission to
the Congress of the fiscal year 2007 President's budget, the
Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to Congress the
annual report on new starts, proposed allocations of funds
for fiscal year 2007: Provided further, That the amount
herein appropriated shall be reduced by $20,000 per day for
each day after initial submission of the President's budget
that the report has not been submitted to the Congress.
Formula Grants
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5308,
5310, 5311, 5327, 5335 and section 3038 of Public Law 105-
178, $662,550,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That no more than $4,417,000,000 of budget
authority shall be available for these purposes: Provided
further, That of the amount available, $2,500,000 shall be
available for the National Transit database.
University Transportation Research
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5505,
$1,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $8,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes.
Transit Planning and Research
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304,
5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322,
$24,049,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $160,325,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes.
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 5303-5308,
5310-5315, 5317(b), 5322, 5327, 5334, 5505, and sections 3037
and 3038 of Public Law 105-178, $7,209,700,000, to remain
available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That
$3,754,450,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's formula grants account: Provided further,
That $136,276,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's transit planning and research account:
Provided further, That $68,000,000 shall be paid to the
Federal Transit Administration's administrative expenses
account: Provided further, That $6,800,000 shall be paid to
the Federal Transit Administration's university
transportation research account: Provided further, That
$148,750,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's job access and reverse commute grants
program: Provided further, That $3,095,424,000 shall be paid
to the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment
Grants account.
Capital Investment Grants
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309,
5318, and 5327, $546,251,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That no more than $3,641,675,000 of
budget authority shall be available for these purposes.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
For necessary expenses to carry out section 3037 of the
Federal Transit Act of 1998, $26,250,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That no more than $175,000,000 of
budget authority shall be available for these purposes:
Provided further, That up to $300,000 of the funds provided
under this heading may be used by the Federal Transit
Administration for technical assistance and support and
performance reviews of the Job Access and Reverse Commute
Grants program.
[[Page H5414]]
Administrative Provisions--Federal Transit Administration
Sec. 150. The limitations on obligations for the programs
of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any
authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for
obligation, or to any other authority previously made
available for obligation.
Sec. 151. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
unobligated funds made available for a new fixed guideway
systems projects under the heading ``Federal Transit
Administration, Capital Investment Grants'' in any
appropriations act prior to this Act may be used during this
fiscal year to satisfy expenses incurred for such projects.
Sec. 152. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated before October 1, 2005, under any section
of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain
available for expenditure may be transferred to and
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for
any such section.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation,
and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the
programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the
current fiscal year.
Operations and Maintenance
(harbor maintenance trust fund)
For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of
those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and
maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, $16,284,000, to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.
Maritime Administration
Maritime Security Program
For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States, $156,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Operations and Training
For necessary expenses of operations and training
activities authorized by law, $112,336,000, of which
$23,750,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2006,
for salaries and benefits of employees of the United States
Merchant Marine Academy; of which $17,000,000 shall remain
available until expended for capital improvements at the
United States Merchant Marine Academy; and of which
$11,211,000 shall remain available until expended for the
State Maritime Schools Schoolship Maintenance and Repair.
Ship Disposal
For necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete
vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the Maritime
Administration, $21,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed
loan program, not to exceed $3,526,000, which shall be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
Operations and Training.
Ship Construction
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$2,071,280 are rescinded.
Administrative Provisions--Maritime Administration
Sec. 160. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish
utilities and services and make necessary repairs in
connection with any lease, contract, or occupancy involving
Government property under control of the Maritime
Administration, and payments received therefore shall be
credited to the appropriation charged with the cost thereof:
Provided, That rental payments under any such lease,
contract, or occupancy for items other than such utilities,
services, or repairs shall be covered into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 161. No obligations shall be incurred during the
current fiscal year from the construction fund established by
the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the
appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in
any prior appropriations Act.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Administrative Expenses
For necessary administrative expenses of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, $17,027,000, of
which $645,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety
Fund.
hazardous materials safety
For expenses necessary to discharge the hazardous materials
safety functions of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, $26,183,000, of which $1,847,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That up
to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall
be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as
offsetting receipts: Provided further, That there may be
credited to this appropriation, to be available until
expended, funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training, for reports publication
and dissemination, and for travel expenses incurred in
performance of hazardous materials exemptions and approvals
functions.
Pipeline Safety
(pipeline safety fund)
(oil spill liability trust fund)
For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the
pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a
pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107,
and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $72,860,000, of which $15,000,000
shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
shall remain available until September 30, 2008; of which
$57,860,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
of which $24,000,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2008: Provided, That not less than $1,000,000 of the
funds provided under this heading shall be for the one-call
State grant program.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(emergency preparedness fund)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c),
$200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That
not more than $14,300,000 shall be made available for
obligation in fiscal year 2006 from amounts made available by
49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d): Provided further, That none of
the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i), 5127(c), and
5127(d) shall be made available for obligation by individuals
other than the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Research and Development
For necessary expenses of the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, $4,326,000: Provided, That there
may be credited to this appropriation, to be available until
expended, funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training.
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, $62,499,000: Provided, That the Inspector
General shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out
the duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended
(5 U.S.C. App. 3), to investigate allegations of fraud,
including false statements to the government (18 U.S.C.
1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation
by the Department: Provided further, That the funds made
available under this heading shall be used to investigate,
pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code:
(1) unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket
agents; and (2) the compliance of domestic and foreign air
carriers with respect to item (1) of this proviso.
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $26,622,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $1,250,000 from fees established by the
Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board shall be
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and
used for necessary and authorized expenses under this
heading: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 2006, to result in a final appropriation from the
general fund estimated at no more than $25,372,000.
Administrative Provisions--Department of Transportation
(including transfers of funds)
Sec. 170. During the current fiscal year applicable
appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be
available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of
passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability
insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries
on official department business; and uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 171. Appropriations contained in this Act for the
Department of Transportation shall be available for services
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals
not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an
Executive Level IV.
Sec. 172. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 100 political and
Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation:
Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this
provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside the
Department of Transportation.
Sec. 173. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 174. (a) No recipient of funds made available in this
Act shall disseminate personal information (as defined in 18
U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtained by a State department of
[[Page H5415]]
motor vehicles in connection with a motor vehicle record as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provided in 18 U.S.C.
2721 for a use permitted under 18 U.S.C. 2721.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall not
withhold funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Sec. 175. Funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training may be credited
respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's
``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit
Administration's ``Transit Planning and Research'' account,
and to the Federal Railroad Administration's ``Safety and
Operations'' account, except for State rail safety inspectors
participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
Sec. 176. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, rule
or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized
to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to
the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the
payment to the Department of an amount determined by the
Secretary.
Sec. 177. None of the funds in this Act to the Department
of Transportation may be used to make a grant unless the
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full business
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent,
or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more
is announced by the department or its modal administrations
from: (1) any discretionary grant program of the Federal
Highway Administration other than the emergency relief
program; (2) the airport improvement program of the Federal
Aviation Administration; or (3) any program of the Federal
Transit Administration other than the formula grants and
fixed guideway modernization programs: Provided, That no
notification shall involve funds that are not available for
obligation.
Sec. 178. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees
and other funds received by the Department of Transportation
from travel management centers, charge card programs, the
subleasing of building space, and miscellaneous sources are
to be credited to appropriations of the Department of
Transportation and allocated to elements of the Department of
Transportation using fair and equitable criteria and such
funds shall be available until expended.
Sec. 179. Amounts made available in this or any other Act
that the Secretary determines represent improper payments by
the Department of Transportation to a third party contractor
under a financial assistance award, which are recovered
pursuant to law, shall be available--
(1) to reimburse the actual expenses incurred by the
Department of Transportation in recovering improper payments;
and
(2) to pay contractors for services provided in recovering
improper payments: Provided, That amounts in excess of that
required for paragraphs (1) and (2)--
(A) shall be credited to and merged with the appropriation
from which the improper payments were made, and shall be
available for the purposes and period for which such
appropriations are available; or
(B) if no such appropriation remains available, shall be
deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts:
Provided, That prior to the transfer of any such recovery to
an appropriations account, the Secretary shall notify the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of the amount
and reasons for such transfer: Provided further, That for
purposes of this section, the term ``improper payments'', has
the same meaning as that provided in section 2(d)(2) of
Public Law 107-300.
Sec. 180. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to
transfer the unexpended balances available for the bonding
assistance program from ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries
and expenses'' to ``Minority Business Outreach''.
Sec. 181. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Transportation may be obligated for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve
assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds
appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except
for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act,
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the
normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Sec. 182. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be obligated or expended to establish or implement a
pilot program under which not more than 10 designated
essential air service communities located in proximity to hub
airports are required to assume 10 percent of their essential
air subsidy costs for a 4-year period commonly referred to as
the EAS local participation program.
{time} 1615
Points of Order
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page
32, line 25, beginning with ``provided further'' through page 33, line
3.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The provision proposes to place a legislative condition on the
availability of funds. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 34, line
4.
This phrase violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish be to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against
section 151 on page 35, line 25, through page 36, line 5.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law.
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the
bill.
Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices
Salaries and Expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Departmental Offices
including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Building
and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance,
repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial
insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned
overseas, when necessary for the performance of official
business, not to exceed $3,000,000 for official travel
expenses; $187,452,000, of which not to exceed $7,216,000 for
executive direction program activities; not to exceed
$7,521,000 for general counsel program activities; not to
exceed $32,011,000 for economic policies and programs
activities; not to exceed $24,721,000 for financial policies
and programs activities; not to exceed $16,843,000 for
Treasury-wide management policies and programs activities;
not to exceed $63,731,000 for administration programs
activities: Provided, That $35,409,000 of the amount provided
under this heading is for the Office of Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence as authorized in Public law 108-447,
of which $22,032,000 is for the Office of Foreign Assets
Control, $5,882,000 is for the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, and $1,998,000 is for the Office of the
Undersecretary: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Treasury is authorized to transfer funds appropriated for any
program activity of the Departmental Offices to any other
program activity of the Departmental Offices upon
notification to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That no appropriation for
any program activity shall be increased or decreased by more
than 2 percent by all such transfers: Provided further, That
any change in funding greater than 2 percent shall be
submitted for approval to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $3,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2007, is for information
technology modernization requirements; not to exceed $100,000
is for official reception and representation expenses; and
not to exceed $258,000 is for unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the
direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and to be
accounted for solely on his certificate: Provided further,
That of the amount appropriated under this heading,
$5,173,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007, is
for the Treasury-wide Financial Statement Audit Program and
internal control programs, of which such amounts as may be
necessary may be transferred to accounts of the Department's
offices and bureaus to conduct audits: Provided further, That
this transfer authority shall be in addition to any other
provided in this Act.
[[Page H5416]]
Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs
(including transfer of funds)
For development and acquisition of automatic data
processing equipment, software, and services for the
Department of the Treasury, $21,412,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2008: Provided, That these funds shall be
transferred to accounts and in amounts as necessary to
satisfy the requirements of the Department's offices,
bureaus, and other organizations: Provided further, That this
transfer authority shall be in addition to any other transfer
authority provided in this Act: Provided further, That none
of the funds appropriated shall be used to support or
supplement ``Internal Revenue Service, Information Systems''
or ``Internal Revenue Service, Business Systems
Modernization''.
Office of Inspector General
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, not to exceed $2,000,000 for official
travel expenses, including hire of passenger motor vehicles;
and not to exceed $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the
direction of the Inspector General of the Treasury,
$17,000,000, of which not to exceed $2,500 shall be available
for official reception and representation expenses.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration in carrying out the Inspector General
Act of 1978, as amended, including purchase (not to exceed
150 for replacement only for police-type use) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may
be determined by the Inspector General for Tax
Administration; not to exceed $6,000,000 for official travel
expenses; and not to exceed $500,000 for unforeseen
emergencies of a confidential nature, to be allocated and
expended under the direction of the Inspector General for Tax
Administration, $133,286,000; and of which not to exceed
$1,500 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses.
Air Transportation Stabilization Program Account
For necessary expenses to administer the Air Transportation
Stabilization Board established by section 102 of the Air
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (Public
Law 107-42), $2,500,000 to remain available until expended.
Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration
For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Treasury
Building and Annex, $10,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel
expenses of non-Federal law enforcement personnel to attend
meetings concerned with financial intelligence activities,
law enforcement, and financial regulation; not to exceed
$14,000 for official reception and representation expenses;
and for assistance to Federal law enforcement agencies, with
or without reimbursement, $73,630,000 of which not to exceed
$6,944,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2008;
and of which $8,521,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2007: Provided, That funds appropriated in this
account may be used to procure personal services contracts.
Financial Management Service
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service,
$236,243,000, of which not to exceed $9,220,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2008, for information systems
modernization initiatives; and of which not to exceed $2,500
shall be available for official reception and representation
expenses.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of carrying out section 1111 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, including hire of passenger
motor vehicles, $91,126,000; of which not to exceed $6,000
for official reception and representation expenses; not to
exceed $50,000 for cooperative research and development
programs for laboratory services; and provision of laboratory
assistance to State and local agencies with or without
reimbursement.
United States Mint
United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund
Pursuant to section 5136 of title 31, United States Code,
the United States Mint is provided funding through the United
States Mint Public Enterprise Fund for costs associated with
the production of circulating coins, numismatic coins, and
protective services, including both operating expenses and
capital investments. The aggregate amount of new liabilities
and obligations incurred during fiscal year 2006 under such
section 5136 for circulating coinage and protective service
capital investments of the United States Mint shall not
exceed $36,900,000.
Bureau of the Public Debt
Administering the Public Debt
For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt
issues of the United States, $179,923,000, of which not to
exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses, and of which not to exceed
$2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for systems
modernization: Provided, That the sum appropriated herein
from the General Fund for fiscal year 2006 shall be reduced
by not more than $3,000,000 as definitive security issue fees
and Treasury Direct Investor Account Maintenance fees are
collected, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2006
appropriation from the General Fund estimated at
$176,923,000. In addition, $70,000 to be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund to reimburse the Bureau for
administrative and personnel expenses for financial
management of the Fund, as authorized by section 1012 of
Public Law 101-380.
Community Development Financial Institutions
Fund Program Account
To carry out the Community Development Banking and
Financial Institutions Act of 1994, including services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not
to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for ES-3,
$55,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006, of
which up to $13,000,000 may be used for administrative
expenses, including administration of the New Markets Tax
Credit, up to $6,000,000 may be used for the cost of direct
loans, and up to $250,000 may be used for administrative
expenses to carry out the direct loan program: Provided, That
the cost of direct loans, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross
obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to
exceed $11,000,000.
Internal Revenue Service
Processing, Assistance, and Management
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
pre-filing taxpayer assistance and education, filing and
account services, shared services support, general management
and administration; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner,
$4,181,520,000, of which up to $4,100,000 shall be for the
Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program, of which $8,000,000
shall be available for low-income taxpayer clinic grants, of
which $1,500,000 shall be for the Internal Revenue Service
Oversight Board; and of which not to exceed $25,000 shall be
for official reception and representation expenses.
Tax Law Enforcement
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
determining and establishing tax liabilities; providing
litigation support; conducting criminal investigation and
enforcement activities; securing unfiled tax returns;
collecting unpaid accounts; conducting a document matching
program; resolving taxpayer problems through prompt
identification, referral and settlement; expanded customer
service and public outreach programs, strengthened
enforcement activities, and enhanced research efforts to
reduce erroneous filings associated with the earned income
tax credit; compiling statistics of income and conducting
compliance research; purchase (for police-type use, not to
exceed 850) and hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C.
1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at
such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner,
$4,541,466,000, of which $55,584,000 shall be for the
Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement program: Provided,
That up to $10,000,000 may be transferred as necessary from
this account to the IRS Processing, Assistance, and
Management appropriation or the IRS Information Systems
appropriation solely for the purposes of management of the
Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement Program: Provided
further, That up to $10,000,000 may be transferred as
necessary from this account to the IRS Processing,
Assistance, and Management appropriation or the IRS
Information Systems appropriation solely for the purposes of
management of the Earned Income Tax Credit compliance program
and to reimburse the Social Security Administration for the
cost of implementing section 1090 of the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 (Public Law 105-33): Provided further, That this
transfer authority shall be in addition to any other transfer
authority provided in this Act.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 57, line 9, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Information Systems
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
information systems
[[Page H5417]]
and telecommunications support, including developmental
information systems and operational information systems; the
hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may
be determined by the Commissioner, $1,606,846,000, of which
$75,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2007.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas:
Page 57, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $7,700,000)''.
Page 91, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $7,700,000)''.
Page 91, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $3,900,000)''.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the spirit of a
great and noble American, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, who
reminded us, Mr. Chairman, that injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere.
And I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
who have fought injustice in housing. I especially thank the gentleman
from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg); the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver), ranking member; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), my ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services. I
would also like to thank Democrats and Republicans of goodwill who have
been engaged in this fight for housing justice because fighting
injustice in housing is neither Democratic nor Republican.
Fighting injustice in housing is an American cause, and all people of
goodwill understand that we cannot allow invidious discrimination to
steal the great American ideal of having a place to call home. This is
why 37 years ago, Mr. Chairman, this august body passed the Federal
Fair Housing Act. However, 37 years later we still have more than 3.7
million Fair Housing violations annually.
This is why my colleagues have supported the funding of the Fair
Housing Initiatives program and the Fair Housing Assistance program.
Mr. Chairman, I thank God for those Democrats and Republicans who have
supported the funding of these vital programs that not only educate
consumers about housing discrimination but, more importantly,
promulgate investigations that produce evidence of discrimination.
So today, Mr. Chairman, I call upon Democrats and Republicans of
goodwill to restore these vital programs to the fiscal year 2005
levels. If we are to keep real the American ideal of homeownership for
all, we need to restore this funding. If we want the American Dream
embodied in the adage ``there is no place like home'' to thrive and
survive not only for those in the suites of life but also for those in
the streets of life, we are to restore this funding.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to housing, we cannot claim justice for
all of us as long as there is injustice against any one of us. We ought
to restore this funding.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am opposed to increasing the budget for the fair housing programs
for two reasons. The funds are not really needed, and a reduction in
HUD staffing to pay for it is completely contrary to what HUD really
needs. I do not disagree with the gentleman's interest in providing
more for a worthwhile project. The increase in funds is not needed.
I think I have said this before. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, HUD was
awarded $7 million in additional funding to conduct a new national
survey of discrimination. This work was conducted by the Urban
Institute and has now been completed, and the report is issued.
However, in 2005 the increase in funds was retained to complete the
work and reduce the backlog of discrimination cases that have built up
at HUD and in the States. The backlog has been reduced and the report
has been issued. Therefore, the administration requested that the
budget return to historic funding levels, and the committee mark funds
the program at the requested levels. We did not go below or above, but
we did do it at requested levels.
So, therefore, I do not believe that a reduction in funding for HUD
salaries and expenses is appropriate for an increase above the
requested levels for fair housing programs. And what I figure is
appropriate, I would say that we would urge the defeat of this.
I am prepared to go into specific details of why this does not
represent any reduction in activity for the program if the gentleman
would prefer, but the fact is that we have a very real and harmful cut
to the agency's workforce in order to put more funds in FHIP. So I do
not know where we go for more money, and that is the problem that I
have.
The gentleman and I spoke yesterday; and the conversation was, I
thought, very interesting; and also I admit to the fact that he has a
point about things. I just wish that I could tell him this is what we
can do, but we cannot do it under the circumstances.
I urge my colleagues, therefore, to prevent that from happening and
vote ``no'' on the amendment. HUD can do better.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, we agree with the gentleman from Michigan that reducing
salaries and expenses would be a mistake, and there has been some
confusion that is not the fault of the gentleman from Michigan. There
was, as Members on our side talked about various offsets, some lacking
at salaries and expenses, but, in fact, it has been changed, and the
gentleman had no way to know this. He was not misrepresenting.
But the offset in this is not from salaries and expenses. It is from
business systems modernization, a $199 million account for technology.
And the gentleman is correct, and we spoke with various other people
who represent those who work at HUD. So this is not now a reduction of
salaries and expenses. It comes from the account on page 57, line 20,
and following, $199 million for internal revenue.
Secondly, I would say this: when Secretary Jackson testified at his
hearing before our committee, the Committee on Financial Services, in
which the gentleman from Texas now makes a very important contribution
from his own experience and awareness of the need here, I told
Secretary Jackson I was disappointed to see this reduction from one
year to the next. And Secretary Jackson's response, and it is available
from the record and we will make it available for anyone who wants it,
was that he agreed it would be a good idea to have more money, but he
simply had to work within this limited budget. That is, Secretary
Jackson did not say this is enough. He said it was not enough. He did
not have enough resources.
We do believe the modernization is useful, but not at the expense of
a fairly small amount. This is, what, less than 4 percent of the amount
for modernization.
The fact is that housing discrimination continues to be a serious
problem, and we have had recent hard evidence of that. By mandate of
this Congress, we collect something that is known as the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act data, HMDA data people have heard; and the recent report
from banks of the HMDA data shows a prima facie case of discrimination
based on race. There may be some explanation for that, and we are going
to be looking at that. People have said, well, there are other various
reasons. But the fact is that the HMDA data is one indication of that.
I believe this country has made a great deal of progress in doing
away with housing discrimination. It was not so long ago in the
lifetime of many of us here when the Federal court still enforced
racially restrictive covenants which said one could not sell their home
to someone who was African American. That was changed less than 60
years ago. We still have racial discrimination. We still have racial
discrimination particularly in housing;
[[Page H5418]]
$24 million, which is what we would have if the gentleman's amendment
passes, is hardly excessive for this country of 240-plus million people
to deal with a continuing manifestation of what I think is the greatest
single domestic problem we face from our inception, which is racial
unfairness and racial discrimination.
The enforcement of racial discrimination is complicated. People have
become sophisticated. They do not admit that they are discriminating.
The need to test, the need to do very sophisticated work is important.
People have a right, if they are prosecuted, to various procedural
defenses. If we are going to make a good case to prove this, we need
the money.
So I would agree with the gentleman from Michigan that it would have
been a mistake to take it from salaries and expenses, and this does not
do that. I also agree with Secretary Jackson, at least on this one
occasion, and I am trying to think of others and they do not come to
mind, that it would have been better if we had more money for housing
discrimination, given the role that racial discrimination and
unfairness have played in this country. The gentleman from Texas, from
his own career and his own life, has a very profound understanding of
this; and when he came to this Congress, one of the first things he
asked those of us who had been on the committee about was can we
address this.
And we asked him to take the lead, and he has done that very ably.
This is a very well-thought-out, really quite moderate amendment.
Adding $7 million out of this $199 million pool, I think, makes a great
deal of sense. The money will clearly be well used. Yes, there had been
other surveys, but no one familiar with the state of race relations in
America thinks we have reached a point where housing discrimination has
disappeared. And $24 million in this Nation of 240 million people, what
is that, a dime a person? I do not think a dime a person is too much
for this country to spend, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) for confirming my arithmetic because I was a little unsure
there, but I do not think a dime a person is too much for this country
to spend in trying to further combat what has been one of our enduring
obstacles towards reaching our constitutional goal.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman of
this committee. I recognize the constraints that they have operated
under and we can go forward from there. But there comes a time when we
do have to address consequential problems with reference to our
actions.
{time} 1630
In this particular instance, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green),
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and myself have seen fit
to join hands and bring this amendment before the body because we know
that this continues to be a concern and a serious problem in our
Nation.
Two years ago, President Bush proclaimed June as National Home
Ownership Month. In doing so, he pledged his support to help, and I
quote him, ``every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color or place
of birth, have the opportunity to become a homeowner.'' Yet despite the
administration's rhetorical commitment, more than 3.7 million fair
housing violations continue to occur each year.
The Fair Housing Initiative Program and the Fair Housing Assistance
Program play critical roles in fighting housing discrimination. Fair
housing organizations and other nonprofit groups use Federal funds to
provide vital services directly to communities. Grants are used for
education and enforcement programs that educate consumers about how to
recognize and report housing discrimination and to conduct
investigations and testing of complaints of housing discrimination.
Despite this obvious need, funding for fair housing activities in
fiscal year 2006 has been cut by more than 15 percent. This unnecessary
cut will reduce services and leave many potential homeowners with no
programs to advocate and enforce fair housing policies on their behalf.
The Green-Lee-Hastings amendment restores funding to fiscal year 2005
spending and levels the playing field for all who seek home ownership.
Owning a home embodies the core American values of individuality,
responsibility and self-reliance. Owning a home creates neighborhoods
that promote growth and stability throughout our communities.
In my view, restoring this essential funding for fair housing
activities ensures the American dream can become a reality. For the
last 5 years, we have been about the business of a housing boom, and
during that same period of time, 3.7 million discrimination acts a year
have taken place.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
letting me correct myself.
Mr. Chairman, I misread this. Actually, the money comes out of the
information system section of the IRS, not the business modernization.
That is $1.6 billion, including hiring of passenger motor vehicles. So
we are talking about car rentals for the IRS and other accounts. It is
$1.6 billion.
Also I have been corrected by the gentleman from New York. The
population is now closer to 290 million, so we are really talking about
8.5 cents a person. I would like to be precise. We are taking this out
of the $1.6 billion information systems account.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
again my colleagues from California, Texas and Florida. I think that
kind of at least covers the breadth of the Nation. In the breadth of
the Nation, I think what happens sometimes is maybe some of our
colleagues have never suffered discrimination, but I have gone seeking
an apartment that later was rented to someone else and told that the
apartment was not available. It hurts.
We should stop that kind of discrimination. We made progress, but we
are not nearly there yet. This is a $7 million fund that can assist us
in avoiding some measures of housing discrimination.
As far as the chairman's suggestion about the backlog, one of the
reasons the backlog occurs is because people do not get on the front
end and do their work. It is like EEOC. They have a backlog because
they do not have the funds to do what we could have them do if we
properly funded it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is woefully underfunded. It is unfortunate
that the administration and many of our Republican colleagues seek to
cut programs that help the most vulnerable in our country.
Fairness in housing should not be on the chopping block. This is
America. That is why we are here to offer the Green-Lee-Hastings-
Grijalva amendment. This amendment would restore much needed funding to
the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Fair Housing
Initiative in the amount of $7.7 million, equal to the fiscal year 2005
account level.
Mr. Chairman, the Fair Housing Initiative Program and the Fair
Housing Assistance Program are essential programs at HUD. They handle
over 3.7 million fair housing complaints annually. Housing should be a
basic right of every human being, and no one should be discriminated
against. It is really just that simple.
HUD's Office of Fair Housing works daily to address the concerns of
fair housing, civil rights and the disabled. But they still have a long
way to go to gain the public confidence in the enforcement of civil
rights laws, protecting minorities and people with disabilities.
Currently, and let me just mention this, because a lot of our
colleagues do not know this, but discrimination complaints against the
disabled are on the rise. A HUD report found that some landlords
profiting from federally subsidized housing discourage, they discourage
and they continue to discourage, disabled people from applying for
housing through discriminatory practices.
Mr. Chairman, this is just simply unacceptable. It is wrong. How in
the world can we allow anyone in this country, any landlord, to
discriminate against the disabled?
[[Page H5419]]
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has a responsibility
to every person in this country to ensure that there is no housing
discrimination in America. We must work with HUD and the Assistant
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to ensure that they
have the resources and the authority needed to protect minorities and
the disabled in public housing and prosecute those, yes, prosecute
those, who have violated the civil rights of these individuals.
Mr. Chairman, I close by reminding this Congress that many people who
are discriminated against, who are seeking fair, equal and quality
housing are in our own congressional districts, in your congressional
districts and in my congressional district. This is not a partisan
issue, and should not be.
We must make sure that we restore the $7.7 million needed. We need
really more than $7.7 million. Let us at least restore that in the fair
housing accounts to ensure that housing is fair and accessible for all.
That is a basic, basic principle in terms of our American democracy
that we should always adhere to. We should not discriminate, and we
should fund every program that allows for nondiscrimination efforts. We
need to make sure that this $7.7 million is restored.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I ask my colleagues to
support the Green-Lee-Hastings-Grijalva amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Gary G. Miller of California:
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California:
Page 57, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $24,000,000)''.
Page 77, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $24,000,000)''.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer
a modest amendment to ensure that HUD can continue to work to redevelop
brownfields sites in our local communities.
As a member of the Committee on Financial Services and Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, I would like to commend the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg),
for his hard work to adequately fund our Nation's housing and
transportation needs through this difficult budget year.
What we are trying to do here today is, there has been a program
zeroed out for brownfields. As we all know, on the BEDI grants on
brownfields through HUD, HUD looks at a brownfield in a different way
than EPA does. HUD looks at a brownfield in a fashion where they look
and say, what benefit is it to the local communities, and how can we
revitalize communities and create economic development? They do it in
that fashion. They are very discriminatory in how they issue the
grants, too.
On the other hand, the EPA looks at one issue, cleaning up polluted
areas. That is all they look at.
Experts estimate in the United States that more than 450,000 vacant,
unused industrial areas sit fallow today because we really have not
taken and spent the time necessary to clean them up. If you look
throughout our communities, there are many sites that you see that are
fenced in, old plants, old industrial areas, that are sitting vacant
that could be utilized today for housing and for many other areas. And
they are just basically blighted sites throughout individual
communities. They threaten our groundwater supply. They cost our
communities jobs and revenues, and they contribute to urban sprawl.
It is estimated that if, we clean these sites up the way we want to,
550,000 additional jobs will be provided through this country and $2.4
billion in new tax revenues to cities and towns. To build the economies
and attract employers, an increasing number of States and local
governments are working to plan, clean up and redevelop brownfield
sites.
There is a clear and critical role for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to get involved and play a role in this effort. The
largest obstacle cities face in redevelopment of brownfield sites is a
lack of capital needed for the initial work, the planning, the early
stages, the assessment, remediation planning and basically actual
cleanup.
Brownfields can be developed through HUD and developed in a positive
fashion, but we do not do that today. BEDI grants are available. We
have passed legislation now out of the authorizing committee, in fact,
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) was going to be here to speak
in favor of this amendment today, to basically revitalize the BEDI
process, to make it more simplistic, to make it easier for communities
to be able to access the funds without pledging CDBG fund as they have
had to in the past.
We need to return these contaminated sites to productive uses
throughout our communities. BEDI programs give local communities
valuable tools to address blight, create new jobs and expand their tax
base.
It is completely different in every State today than EPA. EPA has a
single goal, and that is just basically to clean up environmentally
polluted sites. On the other hand, HUD looks at it in a different
fashion. HUD looks at the BEDI process as a way to revitalize sites, to
take an actual environmental condition that is perceived or real and
basically develop it into a plan that currently exists.
They target for uses not just basically on one issue, but they target
brownfields for use for economic development, to increase economic
opportunities for low-and moderate-income persons, to stimulate and
retain businesses or jobs, that would otherwise be left fallow and not
lead to economic revitalization.
BEDI financed activities will provide near-term results and
demonstrable economic benefits, such as job creation and increases in
the local tax base. HUD does not encourage applicants who want to land
bank, who want to go and acquire a site, remediate it, and then just
let it sit there and allow it to remain fallow.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
The gentleman from California has been a very creative leader on
this. I just want to agree with what he has had to say. This is very
important for all of the older, urban industrial areas. I do not want
take time with my own 5 minutes because the gentleman from California
has made the case, as will the gentleman from Texas. I just want to
express my strong support and appreciation for his leadership on this
and on the BEDI issue.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
thank the gentleman.
The important part is you could generate $2.4 billion to local
government by cleaning these sites up. We need to give HUD an
opportunity to do what they do best, and that is local economic
development, community development. We need to reform the program,
there is no doubt about it. The legislation we have at hand does that.
I would encourage support in this area.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from
Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their good work on this bill in the
midst of an extremely tight budget environment. Both gentlemen have had
to make some very unpopular decisions. However, eliminating funding for
a proven, results-oriented program like the Brownfields Economic
Development Initiative is one I, along
[[Page H5420]]
with my colleagues from California and Massachusetts, feel strongly
should be reconsidered.
When cities redevelop brownfields, they boost their tax base, spawn
job creation, spur neighborhood revitalization and provide
environmental protection. Unfortunately, H.R. 3058 eliminates funding
for the continued cleanup and redevelopment of urban brownfield sites
for which $24 million was provided last year when no funds were
requested.
{time} 1645
This amendment represents a renewed pledge to communities across the
country signaling this body's commitment to creating and sustaining
viable communities. This amendment increases grants available under the
Community Development fund with the intent that this increase would be
directed toward brownfields redevelopment activities.
The increase is offset by reducing the IRS information systems and
telecommunications support program by $24 million. This account is $29
million above last year's appropriation and $16 million more than the
President's budget requested.
The assessment and cleanup of brownfields are critical to the
economic and environmental health of communities across the Nation.
Within the city of Dallas, a Federal investment of less than $2
million has leveraged more than $370 million in private investment and
created or helped retain close to 3,000 permanent, full-time jobs. Over
1,600 units of housing, including 134 units of affordable housing, have
been developed on former brownfields sites. The program has brought new
vitality to long-distressed portions of the city, boosting the tax
base, and bringing important economic opportunities to many
neighborhoods.
According to the Government Accountability Office, there are well
over 500,000 brownfields across the country. Brownfields affect cities
of all sizes and represent lost opportunity wherever they exist. Yet,
in spite of this fact, the National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment
produced by the U.S. Conference of Mayors cites the lack of funds as
the biggest impediment to meaningful brownfields redevelopment.
I am aware of the argument that the expanded authority of EPA to
handle brownfields precipitated the current cut in HUD's the
brownfields account. EPA's guidelines are much more restrictive.
However, in my respectful view, that flexibility for our Nation's
communities to utilize more than one funding source should not be
eliminated. Further, many communities across the country already have
existing relationships with their local HUD offices.
I urge my colleagues to renew this body's pledge to American
communities and urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I thank my
colleagues for this partnership opportunity.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is difficult for me, but I am
looking at it, and I wanted to point out a few things that I think
everybody ought to know about what the Brownfields amendment, what kind
of heartburn it causes us on the committee. We typically oppose any
amendment to the Brownfields because of the fact that there are several
reasons why this program can and should be considered a low priority.
Let me explain.
While this program has been funded at about $25 million each year,
the EPA has an identical program which in 2005 was funded at over $160
million per year and which has addressed over 8,000 sites. In 2006,
there was an increase of $10 million to over $170 million in EPA. The
facts being cited about the number of projects that Brownfields funding
has served must be referring to the EPA's program, because in the HUD
program, it is very, very minimal. Let me give an example.
HUD's program has been extremely slow in spending money. Only $35
million of the $175 million in appropriations received from 1998 to
2004 has been spent; $35 million out of $175 million. Rather than
putting these funds into project development, funds are often used as a
loan loss reserve rather than for reconstructing sites.
Besides EPA, there are several other sources of remediation funding.
Besides EPA, the Brownfields tax deduction of $200 million is what is
really driving redevelopment decisions, not the small amount of funds
that are in HUD. Where grants have occurred, HUD grants are a very tiny
portion of project development. HUD funds on average are just about 2.3
percent of the total development cost of the project. Moreover, for
each HUD dollar, there are $28 in private and $12 in State and local
funds committed to this project.
What all this means is that Brownfields has found a home at EPA; and
it clearly belongs there, where there are fewer restrictions and more
funds. However, I would pause at this point and say that on the basis
of the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and
what he has been doing, and we have had several conversations about
this, and there may be a future again to look at this down the road, so
I am not going to oppose it, but I wanted my colleagues to know
something about what troubles us within HUD; and I am going to, in
fact, offer to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I agree that a more
flexible, widely accessible program needs to be developed. I believe my
bill, H.R. 280, achieves that goal, and that is why the gentleman from
Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and I have been fighting very hard and believe
that we do need this program. I think we need it. Does it need
improvement? Yes, I agree. We are going to improve it, and I appreciate
the gentleman's help.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman and I want to
congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller). If
there is any area that will positively affect, positively affect our
cities, as a former city mayor, it is this piece of legislation.
I drive by Paterson, New, Jersey and there are so many places that
have been abandoned. Either the person could not keep up with the
taxes, or he cannot clean up the property in the first place.
If there is anything that fosters private-public partnerships, it is
this legislation, because it brings together the local community, the
developer, usually State officials who have their own brownfields
legislation themselves.
I want to commend the gentleman from California. I think that this is
an excellent piece of legislation. I support the added $24 million. I
think this is going to go a long way. This is something tangible and
far from a lot of hot air we hear about helping cities from both sides
of the aisle here. Congratulations.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-Johnson
Amendment to increase the Community Development Fund by $24 million--
funding that will be allocated toward the HUD-Brownfields Redevelopment
Program.
There are an estimated 500,000 to 1 million brownfields sites
nationwide--covering nearly 200,000 acres of land across the country.
Indeed, there are over 1,000 brownfields sites in the 2 counties that
make up my district alone.
These sites are abandoned, often former industrial properties whose
redevelopment can be an important ingredient in the economic recovery
of urban areas.
As a former mayor, I can tell you that redevelopment is the only type
of growth that is possible any longer in our urban communities.
Brownfields development can have a multitude of positive effects on
our Nation's most troubled cities: they can help to create jobs,
improve the quality of the environment, and spur smart growth and
preservation of open space.
My district in New Jersey has many brownfields redevelopment success
stories to tell. The formerly abandoned Boris Kroll Mill in Paterson
has recently been transformed into market-rate rental housing--creating
39 new apartments for residents and 10,000 square feet of retail and
office space.
With financial support from the Federal and local governments
buttressing private support, the area surrounding the new redevelopment
has been given new life.
The buildings have retained their beautiful 19th Century architecture
with brick fronts, high ceilings and grid windows.
[[Page H5421]]
With the increasing commitment of Federal, State and local
authorities to redevelopment, these success stories from our cities and
suburbs are being heard around the country.
In the past decade, Congress has made an impressive bipartisan
effort, as we are demonstrating in this amendment today, to raise the
profile of brownfields redevelopment projects and pass laws to
streamline the process.
Every member of the community benefits from increased Federal
incentives for development: residents, land owners, developers, and
businesses.
Unlike EPA brownfields funds, the HUD brownfields grants are
primarily targeted for use in economic development projects.
This HUD program provides a powerful incentive for cities, developers
and parties facing brownfields liability to convert dilapidated sites
into engines of economic growth.
These redevelopment projects enable certain distressed communities to
experience a type of rebirth.
They reconnect us to our historic past, renew our sense of pride in
our cities, and infuse neighborhoods with the vitality and dynamism
they once had in our great industrial past.
Let us not take a step backward by zeroing out funding for the
important Brownfields Economic Development Initiative at HUD right at
the moment when we are beginning to see real progress.
I urge the House to vote for the bipartisan Miller-Johnson amendment
to add $24 million in funding to this important community renewal
program.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G.
Miller) for their recognition that there are communities that are still
suffering and that the brownfields cleanup has been something that even
the least of those really understand. You go into a community where
there has been, if you will, old oil cans piled up in their
neighborhood, tires piled up in their neighborhood, and you will find
that they understand what a cleanup and a brownfield is all about.
I wondered in the original drafting of this legislation whether there
was full recognition of how important the brownfields cleanup is to our
communities. In particular, in the community that I represent, we had a
number of brownfields still waiting for dollars to provide that
assistance. These extra dollars I hope will spread the opportunity for
the cleanup but; more importantly, I hope that it will emphasize the
importance of maintaining this program and maintaining it by funding it
and letting it work.
Quality of life is something we owe all Americans. Many Americans
live in neighborhoods where the quality of life is dependent upon
public funding and public assistance. Brownfields dollars are extremely
important. I would hope that our colleagues would vote for this
amendment because it adds to the quality of life of Americans, some of
whom cannot fight for themselves.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Business Systems Modernization
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service,
$199,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008,
for the capital asset acquisition of information technology
systems, including management and related contractual costs
of said acquisitions, including contractual costs associated
with operations authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That
none of these funds may be obligated until the Internal
Revenue Service submits to the Committees on Appropriations,
and such Committees approve, a plan for expenditure that: (1)
meets the capital planning and investment control review
requirements established by the Office of Management and
Budget, including Circular A-11; (2) complies with the
Internal Revenue Service's enterprise architecture, including
the modernization blueprint; (3) conforms with the Internal
Revenue Service's enterprise life cycle methodology; (4) is
approved by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of
the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget; (5)
has been reviewed by the Government Accountability Office;
and (6) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government.
Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration
For expenses necessary to implement the health insurance
tax credit included in the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
210), $20,210,000.
Administrative Provisions--Internal Revenue Service
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 201. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service or not
to exceed 3 percent of appropriations under the heading ``Tax
Law Enforcement'' may be transferred to any other Internal
Revenue Service appropriation upon the advance approval of
the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 202. The Internal Revenue Service shall maintain a
training program to ensure that Internal Revenue Service
employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in dealing
courteously with taxpayers, and in cross-cultural relations.
Sec. 203. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and
enforce policies and procedures that will safeguard the
confidentiality of taxpayer information.
Sec. 204. Funds made available by this or any other Act to
the Internal Revenue Service shall be available for improved
facilities and increased manpower to provide sufficient and
effective 1-800 help line service for taxpayers. The
Commissioner shall continue to make the improvement of the
Internal Revenue Service 1-800 help line service a priority
and allocate resources necessary to increase phone lines and
staff to improve the Internal Revenue Service 1-800 help line
service.
Sec. 205. None of the funds in this title may be used to
modify the number or location of Taxpayer Assistance Centers
until the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
completes a study detailing the impact that such closures
would have on taxpayer compliance and submits such study to
the Committees on Appropriatons of the House of
Representatives and the Senate for review: Provided, That no
funds shall be obligated by the Internal Revenue Service for
such purposes for 60 days after receipt of such study:
Provided further, That the Internal Revenue Service shall
consult with stakeholder organizations, including but no
limited to, the National Taxpayer Advocate, the Internal
Revenue Service Oversight Board, the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration, and Internal Revenue Service
employees with respect to the types of data to be included in
the model that will determine which Taxpayer Assistance
Centers should be closed and the relative weight of such data
as it relates to such model.
Administrative Provisions--Department of the Treasury
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 210. Appropriations to the Department of the Treasury
in this Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including
maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for
official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries;
purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the general
purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and used
overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into contracts
with the Department of State for the furnishing of health and
medical services to employees and their dependents serving in
foreign countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 211. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriation made
available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service may be
transferred to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration's appropriation upon the advance approval of
the Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That no transfer
may increase or decrease any such appropriation by more than
2 percent.
Sec. 212. Of the funds available for the purchase of law
enforcement vehicles, no funds may be obligated until the
Secretary of the Treasury certifies that the purchase by the
respective Treasury bureau is consistent with Departmental
vehicle management principles: Provided, That the Secretary
may delegate this authority to the Assistant Secretary for
Management.
Sec. 213. None of the funds appropriated in this Act or
otherwise available to the Department of the Treasury or the
Bureau of Engraving and Printing may be used to redesign the
$1 Federal Reserve note.
Sec. 214. The Secretary of the Treasury may transfer funds
from ``Financial Management Services, Salaries and Expenses''
to ``Debt Collection Fund'' as necessary to cover the costs
of debt collection: Provided, That such amounts shall be
reimbursed to such salaries and expenses account from debt
collections received in the Debt Collection Fund.
Sec. 215. Section 122(g)(1) of Public Law 105-119 (5 U.S.C.
3104 note), is further amended by striking ``7 years'' and
inserting `` 8 years''.
Sec. 216. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act may be used by the United
States Mint to construct or operate any museum without the
explicit approval of the House Committee on Financial
Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, Urban
Affairs.
Sec. 217. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act or source to the
Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, and the United States Mint, individually or
collectively, may be used to consolidate any or all functions
of the Bureau of
[[Page H5422]]
Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint without the
explicit approval of the House Committee on Financial
Services; the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs; the House Committee on Appropriations; and the
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 62, line 25, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 218. Not later than 60 days after enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations a report defining currency
manipulation and what actions will be construed as another
nation manipulating its currency, and describing how
statutory provisions addressing currency manipulation by
America's trading partners contained in, and relating to,
title 22 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 286y can be better clarified
administratively to provide for improved and more predictable
evaluation.
Point of Order
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 218
on page 63, lines 1 through 10 of this bill, H.R. 3058, on the grounds
that this provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI because it
is, in fact, legislation included in a general appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section includes language imparting
direction. The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the
bill.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
It is my understanding that the chairman intends to work with us to
incorporate this provision into future legislation that the House will
consider. Is that correct?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the Chair is not rising to a point of order
on the substance because the Chair supports the substance; it is the
manner in which it is being carried in an appropriations bill. The
Chair wishes to work with the chairman very closely to make sure that
this position represented in the legislative portion of the
appropriations bill is included in a legislative vehicle that will be
before us fairly soon.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is exactly my
understanding.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Public and Indian Housing
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
(including transfer of funds)
For activities and assistance for the provision of tenant-
based rental assistance authorized under the United States
Housing act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.)
(``the Act'' herein), not otherwise provided for,
$15,531,400,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$11,331,400,000 shall be available on October 1, 2005, and
$4,200,000,000 shall be available on October 1, 2006:
Provided, That the amounts made available under this heading
are provided as follows:
(1) $14,089,755,725 for renewals of expiring section 8
tenant-based annual contributions contracts (including
renewals of enhanced vouchers under any provision of law
authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the Act:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
from amounts provided under this paragraph, the Secretary for
the calendar year 2006 funding cycle shall provide renewal
funding for each public housing agency based on each public
housing agency's 2005 annual budget for renewal funding as
calculated by HUD, prior to prorations, and by applying the
2006 Annual Adjustment Factor as established by the
Secretary, and by making any necessary adjustments for the
costs associated with the first-time renewal of tenant
protection or HOPE VI vouchers: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall, to the extent necessary to stay within the
amount provided under this paragraph, pro rate each public
housing agency's allocation otherwise established pursuant to
this paragraph: Provided further, That except as provided in
the following proviso, the entire amount provided under this
paragraph shall be obligated to the public housing agencies
based on the allocation and pro rata method described above:
Provided further, That up to $45,000,000 shall be available
only (1) to adjust the allocations for public housing
agencies, after application for an adjustment by a public
housing agency and verification by HUD, whose allocations
under this heading for contract renewals for the calendar
year 2005 funding cycle were based on verified VMS leasing
and cost data averaged for the months of May, June, and July
of 2004 and solely because of temporarily low leasing levels
during such 3-month period did not accurately reflect leasing
levels and costs for the 2004 fiscal year of the agencies,
and (2) for adjustments for public housing agencies that
experienced a significant increase, as determined by the
Secretary, in renewal costs resulting from the portability
under section 8(r) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
of tenant-based rental assistance: Provided further, That
none of the funds provided in this paragraph may be used to
support a total number of unit months under lease which
exceeds a public housing agency's authorized level of units
under contract;
(2) $165,700,000 for section 8 rental assistance for
relocation and replacement of housing units that are
demolished or disposed of pursuant to the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-134), conversion of section 23 projects to
assistance under section 8, the family unification program
under section 8(x) of the Act, relocation of witnesses in
connection with efforts to combat crime in public and
assisted housing pursuant to a request from a law enforcement
or prosecution agency, enhanced vouchers under any provision
of law authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the
Act, HOPE VI vouchers, mandatory and voluntary conversions,
vouchers necessary to complete the consent decree
requirements in Walker vs. U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and tenant protection assistance including
replacement and relocation assistance;
(3) $45,000,000 for family self-sufficiency coordinators
under section 23 of the Act;
(4) $5,900,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital
Fund; and
(5) $1,225,000,000 for administrative and other expenses of
public housing agencies in administering the section 8
tenant-based rental assistance program, of which up to
$25,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary to allocate
to public housing agencies that need additional funds to
administer their section 8 programs: Provided, That
$1,200,000,000 of the amount provided in this paragraph shall
be allocated for the calendar year 2006 funding cycle on a
pro rata basis to public housing agencies based on the amount
public housing agencies were eligible to receive in calendar
year 2005: Provided further, That all amounts provided under
this paragraph shall be only for activities related to the
provision of tenant-based rental assistance authorized under
section 8, including related development activities, except
that up to $200,000,000 of funds made available on October 1,
2006, to this account may be transferred to the ``Project
Based Rental Assistance Account'' at the discretion of the
Secretary.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
Page 63, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 63, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 63, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 95, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $120,000,000)''.
{time} 1700
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for
section 8 housing vouchers for low-income people by $100 million to
enable an additional 15,000 low-income families to afford safe decent
housing.
To offset this increase, the amendment cuts the working capital fund,
a poorly managed computer upgrade program that has been the subject of
lawsuits and which the committee criticizes in its report on Page 108.
Even with the reduction, the bill would still provide up to $110
million in working capital funds for IT projects.
Please note, the bill provides up to $65 million in working capital
funds in 11 accounts scattered around the bill other than the working
capital fund itself.
We have a choice, Mr. Chairman. Do we want to help thousands of
families obtain safe affordable housing, or do we think it is more
important to have a somewhat faster computer upgrade in HUD? If we
support American families, we should support this amendment. The need
for housing assistance is staggering. All over the country, local
housing authorities have long section 8 waiting lists, years long, but
are forced
[[Page H5423]]
to reduce the number of housing vouchers they give out, not because
there is not a huge need, but because we are failing to meet the need
here in Washington.
In fiscal year 2001, we increased the number of section 8 vouchers by
79,000. For fiscal year 2002, the number of new vouchers dropped to
18,000. In fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 not one new voucher at all
was provided for. Rather, the debate concerned how much funding was
necessary simply to maintain the same number of vouchers. And so it is
again now as we debate the fiscal year 2006 budget.
Despite the committee's assurance that the bill fully funds section 8
voucher renewals, the committee has been flatly wrong in making this
assertion in each of the last 3 years; 2 years ago, for example, we
passed an amendment to boost section 8 voucher funding by $150 million.
The committee opposed the amendment on the Floor arguing that vouchers
were fully funded.
Yet the conference report adopted a few months later added $110
million over and above the $150 million we added on the Floor, meaning
that the committee would have underfunded section 8 vouchers by over $1
billion while saying the account was fully funded. That was 2 years
ago.
Last year, the conference report provided $89 million more for
voucher renewals than did the House bill. Yet just 2 months after the
approval of the conference report, the Department, HUD, acknowledged
that even the conference report fell $568 million short of funding all
voucher renewals.
Now the committee, once again, says it is fully funding section 8
voucher renewals. But the President, President Bush tells us that to
renew all existing section 8 vouchers, we would need $314 million more
than the committee thinks is necessary. So the committee understated by
$1 billion, by $568 million, and now by $314 million in each of the
last 3 years.
We all understand that the budget is extremely tight and that many
programs are facing cuts. Our amendment therefore does not seek the
$314 million above the committee amount that the President would
recommend. It seeks merely to restore $100 million. This is less than
the bare minimum of what is needed.
The amendment will not enable us to provide vouchers to any more
families than receive them now, but it will allow us to continue to
help 15,000 families who are now being helped. It enables us to avoid
throwing 15,000 poor families out on the street. That is our choice.
The section 8 housing voucher program provides safe affordable housing
to approximately 2 million American families in urban and rural
communities in every State across our country. These vouchers are often
the only resource for low-income families confronted by our Nation's
affordable housing crisis. Once again, the choice is, will we force an
existing 15,000 families who are now living in safe decent housing out
on the street because we do not have the money to renew their vouchers?
Or will we slow down a computerization program for the bureaucrats at
HUD? That is the choice. I hope we will elect to help the low-income
families meet their critical housing needs by supporting this
amendment. I hope everyone will vote yes on the Nadler-Velazquez-Frank
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will also at this time include in the Record a chart
which documents the 11 different accounts in which funding for the
working capital fund is squirreled away, so that people do not think
that our offset takes too much money away from this program. And I will
include in the Record a letter in support of this amendment signed by
nine religious organizations representing Catholics, Jews, Lutherans,
Presbyterians and Methodists.
Account Amount
Working Capital............................................$165,000,000
S&E--transferrable...........................................15,000,000
Sect. 8 voucher acct..........................................5,900,000
Sect. 8 project acct..........................................1,000,000
Pub. Hsng. Capital...........................................10,000,000
CDBG..........................................................1,600,000
HOME..........................................................1,000,000
Homeless grants...............................................1,000,000
Sec. 202 elderly................................................400,000
Sec. 811 disabled...............................................400,000
FHA--MMIF Acct...............................................18,281,000
FHA--GI/SRI Acct.............................................10,800,000
________________
Total.................................................230,381,000
================
Less reduction in Nadler amdt..............................-120,000,000
Working Capital after Nadler amdt...........................110,381,000
*Note: The bill hides $65 million in additional working capital on top
of the Working Capital Account by sprinkling amounts in 11 other
program accounts. This also has the misleading appearance of
overstating the amounts made available for programs like Public Housing
and Section 8.
____
June 28, 2005.
To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Re: Funding for the Housing Choice (``Section 8'') Voucher
Program.
As members of the faith community, we are writing to
express our concern about funding for the Section 8 housing
voucher program, and to ask that you vote to increase funding
for vouchers when the FY 2006 TTHUD spending bill comes to
the floor of the House of Representatives.
Our organizations work with millions of low-income
individuals and families who, despite their best efforts, are
struggling to meet their basic needs. For many of these
families, high housing costs present a major hurdle in this
struggle, often forcing them to choose between paying rent
and paying for food, clothing, prescriptions and medical
care, transportation to work, and other essentials. The
Section 8 voucher program offers critical assistance to two
million such families, allowing them to live with dignity in
decent, safe and stable housing. Through our work, we are
witness to the important role that housing vouchers play in
preventing homelessness, and in helping families whose
members are unemployed, working low-wage jobs, or living on
fixed incomes to make progress towards economic stability and
self-sufficiency.
Congress has for many years expressed a strong commitment
to the Section 8 voucher program, consistently voting to
fully fund all vouchers. We were therefore disappointed to
learn in January that HUD had announced a 4-percent cut in
voucher renewal funding for FY 2005, despite Congress'
intention to fully fund renewals for this year. This cut,
which is equivalent to 80,000 housing vouchers, has reduced
the availability of affordable housing in hundreds of
communities around the country.
For FY 2006, the House Appropriations Committee has
recommended increasing funding for Section 8 vouchers by $765
million, which is well below the President's request of over
$1 billion. While the Committee recommendation would likely
be sufficient to renew vouchers currently in use, it falls
well short of restoring those vouchers that have been lost
due to the FY 2005 funding shortfall.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler and other Members of the House are
expected to introduce an amendment to increase Section 8
funding by $100 million in the House bill. This amount would
restore funding for approximately 15,000 vouchers, thereby
helping 15,000 poor families obtain decent, stable housing in
the coming year. While more is needed, this amendment
provides an important step forward in supporting these
families. We therefore ask you to support the amendment with
your vote.
As faith organizations, we are committed to strengthening
our communities by assisting those who are the most
vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a
matter of charity, but of responsibility and justice. We urge
you to assist in in our work by renewing Congress' commitment
to fully fund and expand the Section 8 voucher program.
Sincerely,
Call to Renewal.
Catholic Charities USA.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Lutheran Services in America.
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd.
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office.
Union for Reform Judaism.
The United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and
Society.
Mr. Chairman, the conscience of this Nation is asking for this
amendment. I ask this House to agree with that and to adopt this
amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The
amendment would require HUD to close down most of its systems and its
operations, and would result in a loss of almost 400 jobs at HUD. All
of this would occur almost immediately after the passage of the act.
And tragically, all of this would occur just to add funds to the
Section 8 program that are not needed. It adds funds for renewals of
vouchers when the renewal of vouchers has already been fully funded.
This is a tragic outcome for HUD for absolutely no benefit to
families on assistance.
Everyone agrees that the renewal of vouchers at $15.531 billion fully
funds this program for 2006. The industry groups have said so and HUD
has said so.
The only reductions in the Section 8 program that this committee took
[[Page H5424]]
were in overhead and funds originally requested that the Department now
agrees will not be needed in 2006.
Specifically, we reduced overhead and administrative fees to reflect
the transfer of assistance from the tenant-based vouchers to project-
based vouchers, and we reduced tenant protection funds because the
Department indicates that the anticipated regulation that might require
those funds is not going to be put out until after 2006.
What this amendment would accomplish is nothing, or to fund a
shortfall of any kind. Each PHA will receive the amount it is entitled
to, and then the additional funds will sit there and be swept up and
used for other purposes by the administration, just as excess funds
have been swept up and used for non-HUD purposes for years.
But here is what I want you to look at. Look at what happens to HUD
in the meantime. The original request for HUD's working capital fund
was for $265 million to maintain and develop new systems in HUD, new
systems for accounting and new systems for programs.
The committee has already reduced the working capital fund by $120
million in order to fully fund critical assistance programs, such as
the Section 8 program. The amount remaining is the barest of minimums
that HUD has to have to keep its functions, keep its systems
functioning and keep its functioning going.
The committee has already removed funds for all system enhancements
and removed funds for all initiatives. Funds left were for maintaining
the current systems and upgrades needed to meet Federal requirements
such as their accounting system.
An additional cut of $120 million in their working capital fund
would, according to HUD, simply shut down their systems, shut them
down, and it would abrogate the contract they have with EDS and
Lockheed Martin to maintain their systems. The contract itself runs
over $100 million each year, and it is only maintenance. This amendment
would leave all of HUD with only $45 million.
According to HUD officials, HUD would have to shut down the
accounting system, the development of the new accounting system for
FHA, system for PIH and to administer the Section 8 program, and then
public housing programs will be shut down. Virtually all systems will
be shut down.
Shutting down the contract that was painfully negotiated over a 4-
year period will also throw HUD into chaos. They have no back up,
nowhere to go except to the GSA schedule that will cost 150 percent of
the cost of the contract, so with this amendment, HUD could not go
there either.
I would just suggest to the gentleman that this is not workable by
all of the investigation that we have done, and I would urge that we
oppose this amendment.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of restoring funding for
Section 8 vouchers. Providing decent, safe affordable housing is one
area that must not be overlooked in the greater debate on spending
priorities. This bill funds Section 8 at the level of $314 million
below the President's request, jeopardizing the housing of low-income
families across the country. Without restored funding, hardworking
families struggling to make ends meet will be left without homes and
will be forced to turn to the already crowded shelter system.
If you are committed to end homelessness as we know it, today you
have the opportunity to vote for this amendment. The Nadler-Velazquez-
Frank amendment will restore $100 million for Section 8 providing
vouchers for approximately 15,000 families by reducing funding for
HUD's working capital fund which provides for the technology needs of
the Department. This increase will ensure that families working to
create a better life for their children will have a safe, decent place
to call home.
Stable housing is the first step to economic advancement and positive
outcomes for children. Without a steady home, children suffer from
being shifted between shelters and the homes of family and relatives,
missing school and lacking opportunity for the lasting relationships so
crucial to healthy development. The Nadler-Velazquez-Frank amendment
will help address this issue by restoring critical funding to a program
that has had a tremendous impact on the lives of low-income families
around the country.
The Section 8 program is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of
families without which they would face the cold reality of life on the
streets or the uncertainty of navigating our Nation's swelling shelter
system. This amendment will prevent 15,000 families from losing their
homes, continuing the support so needed as they strive to achieve
economic stability in the face of challenging circumstances.
In this body, day in and day out, we hear talk about family values.
What issue could be more linked to the morals we espouse than providing
safe and decent homes for America's families? The Section 8 program
serves the approximately 2 million Americans in greatest need, and
these families are depending on us here today.
The Nadler-Velazquez-Frank amendment will restore $100 million in
funding for 15,000 vouchers. This is a modest but important increase to
protect the homes of families working to overcome obstacles in
difficult economic times. I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) did a very good job of dealing with a
difficult issue that was dumped in his lap in Section 8, and I
acknowledge that. And I think he provided a great deal of comfort to
tenants and administrators throughout the country by relieving them of
the uncertainty that some proposed very drastic changes were there. And
I thank the gentleman for that. And I understand also that he had a
difficult situation. I would like to see even more.
The point I would just make is this: From a number of decisions that
we have made, Section 8 has become the main housing program of the
United States. I wish it were not. I think it is a mistake to have no
production. And we have virtually no production. I think we have made
the Section 8 program, by default, carry more load than it ought to.
Secretary Jackson talks about what an increasing percentage of the
HUD budget Section 8 has become. That is partly because they have cut
out everything else. And so what the Section 8 program is, is a
survivor. And in an ideal world, we might allocate a little bit more to
housing production, et cetera. But that is not where we are. We very
much need this money. It is not nearly enough, but we are in a tight
budget situation. Some of us wish we were not. Some of us voted not to
be in it, but facts are facts.
As to renewals, the gentleman from Michigan may be right that there
is enough for renewals. I hope he is. He may not be. But the point is
that nothing in this amendment says it is only for renewals. The
gentleman from New York pointed out that we have not had any new ones.
Does anyone think that all of the people in America who need Section 8
housing now have it, and that we only have to work with renewals?
We had an amendment offered earlier by the gentleman from Minnesota,
and I should acknowledge the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy)
voted for that affordable housing program that I talked about, and I
should not have implied if anyone thought that he had not. But he
talked about a $100 million more for the homeless, taking it out of
Amtrak.
If you want to provide $100 million for the homeless, vote for this
amendment because, you know what makes you homeless? Not having a home.
That is what homelessness means. And one way to deal with the homeless
is to get them homes. An additional $100 million in Section 8 is the
best, most efficient way to provide homes for the homeless. So we
acknowledge that there is an unmet housing need. And as I said again,
and I mean this very sincerely. I appreciate the gentleman from
Michigan with regard to CDBG and HUD and Section 8 and HUD. He brought
some order of a situation that was fraught with confusion for people,
and I appreciate his willingness to do this.
[[Page H5425]]
{time} 1715
We are talking now about a somewhat marginal increase. We wish it
could be bigger. But I would say the argument against this on the
merits has to be that you think America is now providing housing for
everybody who needs it.
I would say to other Members, across party lines, across geographic
lines, in past years when there have been threats for shortfalls in
Section 8, I know all of us on the Committee on Financial Services that
deals with housing have gotten anguished complaints from other Members
saying, How can we stop this?
Well, I tell you the best way to stop another wave of threatened
shortfalls, people not having enough. Rents can go up. You cannot
entirely predict what the needs are going to be. I tell you a very good
way to prevent yourself from being again besieged by fears that there
will be people turned away, et cetera. Put this money in here now. If
it is not needed for renewal, I hope it is not, I cannot be sure it is
not, if it is not needed for renewals, then I think we will find in
this country $100 million worth of people who need housing. And that is
of course what we do.
I would say again, if you were tempted by the homelessness amendment
before, taking it out of Amtrak, let us put it here. As far as HUD's
administration work is concerned, I think we can probably find some
ways to deal with that. But I do not think that we ought to sacrifice
HUD's primary goal of providing housing for people to deal with some of
the bureaucratic issues. So I hope the amendment is adopted.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler-Velazquez amendment to
restore partial funding for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program. The underlying bill cuts some $314 million for vouchers that
enables low-income families to rent safe, affordable housing. This
amendment would restore a third of that money, $100 million, and
thereby save about 15,000 low-income families from across this country
from losing their homes.
If you are concerned about the homeless, then this should be a
definite vote in favor of this amendment. This is very much a
bipartisan issue. This past spring over 170 Members from both sides of
the aisle signed a letter this spring to the appropriators urging them
to restore full funding for the Section 8 voucher program. Those
Members recognized that the Section 8 voucher program is the only
effective Federal program supporting affordable rental housing in large
urban areas such as New York City and Chicago and would be very much
affected if this amendment does not pass.
Section 8 vouchers provide millions of families across the country a
safe and affordable place to live and are critical to State and local
efforts to end homelessness.
These cuts come at a time when Section 8 is already under attack due
to program changes in April that threatened to cut over $50 million in
vouchers in New York City alone. Due to underfunding in the last bill,
many housing agencies have had no choice but to reduce the number of
vouchers and cut the subsidy below local rental levels.
The proposed cuts make this very, very bad housing crisis a much
worse situation. The money to fund this amendment comes out of a
program for computer upgrades that the committee criticized in its
committee report as ``poorly managed and inefficient.''
I would certainly say that keeping 15,000 families in their homes
instead is a better choice that supports family values. My colleagues
on the other side of the aisle constantly talk about family values. I
cannot think of a more important family value than keeping families in
their homes. This is what this amendment does.
In fact, a wide range of faith-based organizations have written an
open letter to me and other Members of Congress making exactly that
same point. And these faith-based organizations call the effort to save
Section 8 vouchers ``not just a matter of charity but of responsibility
and social justice.''
There are so many drastic cuts in this bill for worthy housing
programs that protect the most vulnerable among us, cuts to housing for
those with HIV/AIDS, cuts to fair housing programs that reduce
discrimination in housing, and cuts to the Community Development Grant,
program just to name a few.
I do want to compliment my colleagues for accepting the Miller
amendment. It is very, very important to have monies in the budget for
brownfields, particularly urban areas in order to spur economic
development.
You cannot really build affordable housing without a Federal role.
The Section 8 voucher program has been one of the most successful in
this country's history in providing affordable housing to those in
need, and it is unconscionable to have this cut. It would literally put
15,000 families out on the street and increase the need for more
homeless housing.
So if you care about housing in general, if you care about not
reducing the need for homeless housing, and the other cuts that the
leadership of our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), has pointed out so clearly on the floor, you should support
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have examined very carefully this budget that we have
oversight responsibility for in the Committee on Financial Services and
the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, and it is a
matter of whether or not we are going to stand up here on every issue
and try and get those programs back that have been zeroed out and
attempted to transfer over to Commerce, whether or not we are going to
stand here and beg for some meager assistance to help us with the
Section 8 program, whether or not we are trying to get the Brownfields
back or the section 108.
Well, it is pretty difficult to choose which one you want to spend
your time on. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Development, I really would like to speak on all of them
because it is really unconscionable that in this time in the United
States of America, 2005, that we are haggling over dollars to help
American citizens have a decent quality of life with decent housing.
We have a crisis in housing in America, not just in our cities, in
our rural areas. People are not able to have decent housing. They are
looking to their government for some help. We are giving some help. And
I am appreciative of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for
the hard work that he has put into this budget. I know that given what
he had to work with, with the limitations of this budget, he has done
the best job that he could possibly do. That is why some of us have
been so opposed to these tax cuts.
We know that the tax cuts that we have passed in this Congress have
benefited the richest 1 percent in America while we have people who are
sleeping under bridges, families that are living in cars, people who
work every day who cannot get into apartments because they cannot pay
the first and last month's rent; children who go to school every day
living in cars who are basically homeless because they do not have a
place to live.
For those people who are fortunate enough to get the Section 8
vouchers, now we have to say to them as we did in Los Angeles that we
cannot fund some of those vouchers. We made some mistakes in Los
Angeles, and we over subscribed what we had. And we had people out
there that we had given the authorizations to that we cannot honor. And
now we are talking about taking money from one of the most profound
programs in all of government, a program that simply allows individuals
and families to have a decent place to live, and we are going to
eliminate their ability to have decent housing because we want to spend
money on some computers.
Well, I am all for good systems. I am all for upgrading. Now is not
the time. Let us not take money from these housing subsidies in order
to have computers when, in fact, if we take this amendment, we can fund
15,000 more vouchers. That is not too much to ask.
I know that there are those who have said we have made the additions.
We are not going to undo them. We are not going to turn them around.
But those of us who get these calls in our offices, ask us, Where can
you find me a place to live? How can you help me?
[[Page H5426]]
The lines are long all over America. People wish to get in this
Section 8 program because they cannot do any better.
Our ranking member referred to housing production. It is next to
nothing. We do not have housing production. The cost of the land
acquisition is too high. It is absolutely prohibitive to try and build
low-cost units for people who really need them without some government
help. And we do not have enough government help in order to acquire the
lands and to write down the costs of building these units.
The best thing that we could do for those who could not do it without
us is to provide them with Section 8 housing vouchers. I do not think
it is too much to ask. I support this amendment, and I am very thankful
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez), despite the fact that they were advised not
to do it, had the courage and the guts to do it. So I stand here with
them to say no matter what else we are cutting, let us put the money
back into this program.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I simply could not let the time go by without rising to
support the Nadler-Velazquez amendment.
I realize the difficulty of finding resources. We all know about
tight budgets, and we know that you cannot get blood out of a turnip.
But the Section 8 housing voucher program is one of the best things
that has happened for poor people in this country. Every day my phone
rings incessantly with people asking if we know where they can find a
place to live; do we know where they can find some low-income housing;
do we know where they can find some affordable housing?
And while we are only talking about 15,000 vouchers, which is
minimum, for those individuals who would be able to acquire them, it
would be like receiving manna from heaven.
So I simply reiterate what has already been said and that is if we
really want to help the homeless, do as the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, provide them with a place to live. I
support the amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the
Nadler-Velazquez amendment. And I appreciate the gentleman from
Michigan's (Mr. Knollenberg) attempt to protect Section 8 in the bill.
I respect his support for the program, but we are here about a debate
in large respect about our values. That is what the budget process is.
That is what the appropriations process is.
We speak to the different issues that we care about in this country
and our personal values, and the total values of both our parties as
well as our country are reflected in this national document that we
call the budget and the appropriations process that fulfills that
budget.
Now, when we think about values, what more values are there than of
having a home, a place to call home, a place to bring your family, a
place to bring your newborn child, a place where in fact that child is
nurtured, a place where that child is going to study, a place where
there will be celebrations, a place where difficult moments will be met
together by family, a place that is secure and safe and warm and
comforting and nurturing. That is a value when we talk about families
because a family that does not have a home finds it very difficult to
sustain itself as a family.
{time} 1730
So this amendment strikes at the very heart of what we want to see,
the ability of families to sustain themselves together in a nurturing
environment that we call home. For too many people in this country,
there is simply not a place for them to call home, and many times
families are not even together because they are living with other
family members. They are separated and apart.
So, ultimately, this is about creating an opportunity for more
families to call someplace home, and I wish we were discussing an
amendment that would be providing far more than $100 million for
Section 8, but still, this move, this is a critical one towards
fulfilling the gap that the bill leaves open. At a minimum, we should
be able to meet the President's request which recognizes the shortfalls
in the program last year.
Section 8 is our Nation's most successful Federal low-income housing
program, but it has been the victim of continual underfunding, sweeping
structural changes and last-minute policy changes.
I have seen that firsthand in my district the havoc that it wreaks on
the lives of people who are in it, and the millions who are waiting
throughout the country and certainly thousands that are waiting in my
own district as they wait on the list, and they are told after waiting
so long, oh, we are still further underfunded; we are not going to get
to that list. Without warning or rationale, HUD has changed the
formulas, capped funding, established policies retroactively, making it
harder and harder for housing authorities to keep up.
Last year's appropriation left a shortfall of 80,000 vouchers. What
will it be this year, 100,000? The ongoing shortfall comes at a time
when the administration has also put forward a proposal that
dramatically threatens the future of Section 8, and finally, at a time
when the cost of living is rising, when rented housing prices are
increasingly out of reach, particularly in high cost areas like New
Jersey, the answer to these obstacles should not be weakening the very
program that provides assistance to those who depend on it most. If
home is where the heart is, let this Congress not be heartless and not
make more people homeless at the end of the day.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I did not want this debate to end without expressing my
support for what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is doing
today.
The reality is that, while this economy has improved in the last
several years, while housing starts are on the rise, while the number
of Americans with the chance at the dream of homeownership is rapidly
expanding, there are a lot of breaks and gaps in this economy, and this
program, Section 8, exists to remedy those breaks and those gaps.
The score of the amendment of the amount of money that the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) proposes to add to this budget is roughly
1.6 percent of this bill. This is a fractional investment in the scheme
of things, but it is a significant investment for numerous families who
will benefit from Section 8.
So I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his
outstanding work in raising this issue and being persistent and
bringing it before this body.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let
me say that I also appreciate the work of the distinguished chairman
from Michigan in bringing some order from the recommendation of the
administration on this bill, but I have to make a couple of comments.
First of all, as I said before, look at what we have done on Section
8. We have hundreds of thousands of people on waiting lists, hundreds
of thousands, waiting 8, 9, 10 years for decent housing for Section 8
vouchers. As recently as 2001, we increased the number of Section 8
vouchers by 79,000. In 2002, we increased it by 18,000. Since then, in
2003, 2004, 2005, we did not increase it by one, not by one. Instead,
we debated, are we funding the existing number of vouchers, and this is
what we are debating again now. I wish we were debating increasing the
number of vouchers.
The gentleman from Michigan says Section 8 is fully funded. Well, I
do not think it is, but even if it were, we should be increasing the
number, and if we are wrong, and we are increasing the number by a few,
that is the right thing to do, but the fact is, look at the history
here.
Two years ago, the committee said we were fully funding Section 8. We
added to that an amendment of $150
[[Page H5427]]
million. The conference report added $910 million above that, and that
is what was necessary to fully fund it, $1 billion above what the
committee said was fully funded. Last year, the conference report added
$89 million above what the House did, $89 million more than what the
committee said was necessary to fully fund existing Section 8, and HUD
later acknowledged during the year that that did not fully fund it. It
was $568 million short, and a huge number of people lost their
vouchers.
Now the committee once again says it is fully funded, but the
President says we need $314 million more to fully fund it. This
amendment would give $100 million of the $314 million the President
says is necessary to fully fund it, and again, what do we mean by fully
fund? Not kick people out on the street, not increase by one, not
shorten the waiting list. So we ought to be doing that.
Finally, let me say that we are told that the offset would leave only
$45 million in its computer account. The fact is the co-committee has
been very ingenuous in squirrelling away money in different accounts. I
have here, and I submitted for the Record earlier, the list of all the
places in the bill where money is squirrelled away. There is a total of
$230 million. If we take $120 million away, as we will, that will leave
$110 million for this purpose, which is enough for the computer upgrade
program that they are talking about. Again, are we in favor of people
having decent housing, or are we in favor of a somewhat faster computer
upgrade at the Department?
Do not believe bureaucrats when they tell us that all will be lost if
they do not get all the money they need. We should know better than
that.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Republicans many of them support this
amendment. We passed a similar amendment 2 years ago with Republican
support; 170 Members have signed a letter in support of this amendment,
including many Members from the other side of the aisle. They voted for
the same amendment 2 years ago.
I urge everyone on both sides of the aisle to vote for this
amendment, to indicate that the very least we can do is not reduce the
number of people who have the assistance, who are having decent
housing. If we value family values, if we value decency in providing
people with the ability to have decent housing, we will support this
amendment, and the damage will be mitigated. It is not as much as the
President wants, $314 million, but at least it is a third of that.
Unfortunately, we could not find more offsets.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the chairman. I urge
everyone to vote for this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gingrey
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Gingrey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 948. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide assistance under the community development
block grant program under title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.)
for any private economic development project (including
assistance for any project under paragraph (17) of section
105(a) of such Act) involving the obtaining of property by
the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes that the amendment addresses a portion
of the bill not yet read for amendment. Is the gentleman seeking a
unanimous consent request to proceed out of order?
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I do ask unanimous consent to proceed out
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to its consideration at this point
in the reading?
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an amendment that
I have offered to H.R. 3058.
I would first like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman
Knollenberg) for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my amendment
and to explain its intent within the greater context of the recent New
London decision by the Supreme Court.
The amendment that I have offered would prevent any funds
appropriated to the Community Development Block Grant program from
being used to support an economic development project that acquires
land through eminent domain.
Like many members of this body and most people in this country, I am
incensed by the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v.
the City of New London that has effectively turned the deeds to every
American home and business over to the government. Imagine a sign on
every piece of real personal property that reads: For Sale By
Government.
While most people recognize that eminent domain has been used
historically for the building of a school or a road which serves the
entire community, the American people will never accept the idea that
government can arbitrarily take away one person's home or business and
give it to someone else for the sole purpose of increasing that
government's tax base. Government should never have the power to force
a person out so that a mini mall can move in.
In the city of Augusta, Georgia, where I grew up there is a little
shop called the Sunshine Bakery. Owned by the same family for over 100
years, the Sunshine Bakery may not be a Fortune 500 company, Mr.
Chairman, but it is this family's livelihood, and it serves as an
important part of the community. Yet, the City of Augusta could now
shut down the Sunshine Bakery and sell the property and their life to
the highest bidder. Frankly, such an act is not only un-American but it
is also unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, by the narrowest of majorities, the Supreme Court last
Thursday decided to abandon its responsibility to uphold the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution. By a margin of only one vote, five
justices have thrown out over 2 centuries worth of precedent and
protections. They have taken away the constitutional guarantee that no
one's home or business could be forcibly taken away by the government
except for public use and with just compensation.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage every American to read the majority's
opinion. Rather than ruling about what is public use and what is not
public use, this narrow majority just threw up their hands and allowed
government to take, for all intents and purposes, whenever it so
desires.
Congress cannot, and I trust will not, stand idly by while States and
local governments abuse their power of eminent domain. From the largest
State to the smallest city, no government should use the New London
decision as cover to take away personal real property and give it to a
developer to increase the tax base.
Make no mistake, I fully support economic development and
improvement. Like most Americans, I believe that communities should
work in conjunction with their citizens to build stronger, more
economically vibrant communities. However, what has distinguished this
great country of ours above all others is our bedrock belief in
individual liberty and property protections and the security these
liberties and protections offer. This security has fostered economic
prosperity. It has created a society in which this prosperity can be
enjoyed. The Supreme Court, by removing these protections, has struck a
serious and dangerous blow to the American way of life.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would use Congress' power of the purse to
make sure that this government never subsidizes eminent domain abuse
and never subsidizes the theft and destruction of people's homes and
businesses. However, Mr. Chairman, in light of the point of order
reserved against my amendment, momentarily I will ask to withdraw it.
[[Page H5428]]
This amendment marks only the start of this discussion, and it is my
hope that this Congress will set the record straight for the sake of
the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan:
Strike ``Provided'' in line 3 on page 64 and all that
follows through line 19 on page 65, and insert the following:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
from amounts provided under this paragraph, for the calendar
year 2006 funding cycle the Secretary shall allocate and
provide renewal funding for each public housing agency (other
than an agency with a special funding agreement under the
Moving To Work demonstration program) based on leasing and
per-voucher cost data for the most recent 12-month period for
which such data is available as of the time of the such
allocation determinations, as adjusted to reflect likely
reasonable future costs (A) by applying 2006 local and
regional Annual Adjustment Factors as established by the
Secretary using the most recent data available, and (B) by
applying such additional adjustments to such prior period
data, to compensate for changes in the leasing rate or
average voucher cost, as the Secretary may approve for a
public housing agency, pursuant to application by the agency:
Provided further, That application and approval of such
additional adjustments shall be in accordance with such
limitations as the Secretary shall provide, which shall
include the use of objective and fair approval criteria
established by the Secretary that provide that (A) adjustment
to the leasing rate shall be approved if an agency
demonstrates need for renewal of previously issued tenant
protection vouchers or of other authorized vouchers to comply
with court orders or to meet previous commitments to owners
for project-based vouchers in projects ready for occupancy in
2006, and (B) adjustment of the per-voucher cost shall be
approved if an agency demonstrates (i) rent increases, (ii)
utility rate changes, (iii) known changes in subsidy costs
due to enhanced vouchers, portability, increased average unit
size, or approval of higher subsidy payments for people with
disabilities due to reasonable accommodation, (iv) change in
average tenant income, including adjustments needed for areas
with seasonal employment if income variations are not
adequately reflected in the period of data used by HUD, or
(v) increase in number of families participating in the
Family Self-Sufficiency program who are building escrow
savings due to increased earnings: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall use per-voucher cost data from 2004 for a
public housing agency in lieu of the prior-period data
specified above if requested by the agency and the agency
certifies that the reduction in its per-voucher cost in 2005
or authorized leasing level in 2004 or 2005 was due to policy
changes made by the agency to respond to a funding shortage
in 2004 or 2005 and it is necessary to modify such policies
to comply with requirements under law or goals under the
Secretary's regulations relating to voucher renewal funding:
Provided further, That the Secretary may deny the adjustments
referred to in the preceding two provisos with respect to a
public housing agency if the agency is not complying with
section 8(o)(10)(A) of the Act (regarding rent
reasonableness): Provided further, That the aggregate amount
of such additional adjustments referred to clause (B) of the
first proviso of this paragraph (1) and determined under the
two provisos that follow such clause shall not exceed 2
percent of the total amount provided under this paragraph and
each public housing agency for which such an adjustment is
approved shall receive the same percentage of the approved
amount: Provided further, That the Secretary shall, to the
extent necessary to stay within the amount provided under
this paragraph, prorate each public housing agency's
allocation otherwise established pursuant to this paragraph,
except that such proration shall not apply to the renewal of
enhanced vouchers under any provision of law authorizing such
assistance under section 8(t) of the Act currently subject to
proration;
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
{time} 1745
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
working with us, and I understand the point of order. It is something
we need to bring to the attention of the Committee on Appropriations.
There has been much discussion already today about the section 8
program and the need of millions of Americans who are now in the
section 8 program and millions more who are waiting for affordable,
safe, clean housing. This amendment would talk about the distribution
of the dollars, once we restore the section 8, and as we are in the
section 8 program today.
In 1993, this Congress passed an act that would limit the
distribution of those dollars and use a 3-month window to decide how
those dollars would be distributed. First, the dollars are not enough,
then they use a 3-month window rather than 12 months of the fluctuating
cost of public housing authorities to decide how much each public
housing authority will get in the section 8 housing choice voucher
program.
I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg), the chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for providing an appropriation in this bill
to address some of that need in the 2006 budget. As of right now, as
this bill was debated and as it passed the Congress in 2003, in 2004,
my district and districts all over America lost hundreds of thousands
of vouchers. And for my district, in the 13th Congressional District,
that was 1,500 vouchers people had in 2004 that they do not have in
2005, and there is some help in this budget to rectify some of that.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding to me, and I just want to express my support for what she is
doing. As an authorizing member of the committee, I am very
appreciative of what she has done on the appropriations subcommittee,
along with my neighbor and ranking member. Well, not quite my neighbor,
but my colleague.
And I just wanted to express my support and my hope that the very
important issue she is raising now will be worked out satisfactorily.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
the ranking member; and I hope to get it in an authorizing bill as well
as to rectify it permanently.
We suggest that the formula would be better distributed on a fairer
basis if it would use the 12-month rather than the 3-month window, so
that the housing authorities can get the dollars they so sorely need
and deserve.
I have a list here of several organizations who support this fairer
funding amendment and will be working with the ranking member and the
chairman of the authorizing committee to make sure that as we save the
section 8 program that it is funded properly and that the money is then
distributed properly.
Organizations such as the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities
support the fairer distribution; organizations such as the National
Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials support the
distribution using the 12-month window rather than the 3-month. The
National Association of State Housing Agencies supports using the 12-
month need and flexibility rather than the 3-month window, which has an
unfair distribution of those dollars. Also, the National Leased Housing
Association also believes that we ought to consider distributing those
dollars on a 12-month average rather than a 3-month average. The
National Low-Income Housing Coalition also believes we should do that
as well.
It is important that as we look at the section 8 program, and as was
mentioned earlier, and I will not go back over all of that again, that
we not only know the need and how important it is but that public
housing authorities must be able to meet those needs in a better and
fairer way. We have to be able to do what is necessary so that the
program is saved.
The portability of those vouchers is something we want to maintain so
that individuals, families, and children are able to create and have
safe, clean, decent housing. The disparity that exists
[[Page H5429]]
when you use the 3-month window is really appalling and not equal and
not fair. This prevents the displacement and the air that adds to the
displacement of our elderly and disabled and other tenants who are
sometimes in private development. They need these protections, and they
need to make sure the distribution of the funding is fairer.
I know Chairman Knollenberg has raised a point of order. Would my
good Michigan colleague and chairman of the committee join me in a
dialogue?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If the gentlewoman will yield, I will indeed.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
my colleague. I understand the gentleman's point of order, and I
respect it highly as our chairman, but I wanted to ask if the gentleman
would work with us to make a fairer distribution of the section 8
dollars as we go forward into next year.
I commend the chairman for putting in the extra dollars in this 2006
budget so that we can rectify some of that across the country.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to
yield, I would say to my friend and colleague from Michigan that I will
do everything I can to work with her. I intend to do that. I know that
we have worked things out on some other issues, so we will do our
darnedest to make sure we work in fulfilling her desire as best we can.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and
appreciate his time and energy on that; and I am sure, Mr. Chairman,
that we will work to strengthen the section 8 program in general and
certainly the distribution of the funding. I hope that we will also
work together to make permanent a 12-month distribution of those funds
and not use the 3-month window, which will better serve the public
housing authorities in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment addressing the
growing concern I have with the unfair distribution of renewal funding
for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.
The trend of the past few years for providing allocations to state
and local housing agencies for voucher renewal funding has been to base
budget allocations on a 3-month ``snap-shot,'' from May through July in
2005.
The justification for selecting those 3 months is only because that
was the most recent fiscal quarter for which data was available. There
was no consideration of local market condition changes throughout the
year in different areas of the country.
While I greatly appreciate Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member
Olver for recognizing this disparity, and including a set-aside of $45
million to adjust the allocations of the housing agencies whose snap-
shot did not accurately reflect leasing levels and costs for 2004, this
``fix'' still does not address the fundamental problem.
The essential problem is that we are basing yearly budgets on just 3
months of costs. That leaves 9 months of fluctuating market conditions
unaccounted for.
At a time when rising energy costs are driving utility costs up, and
job markets are fluctuating, particularly in areas like Michigan with
its manufacturing base, we cannot ignore the impact of these market
changes on subsidy needs.
Similarly, housing agencies are required to pay portability costs
for families who are relocating, though agencies have control over rent
subsidies for those areas. They must simply compensate by reducing or
denying assistance for someone else.
This arbitrary snap-shot creates a disparity where some housing
agencies wind up with more money than they need to meet their
commitments, and others will have to turn families out into the cold
because their under-estimated budgets could no longer support the same
number of vouchers.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would implement a formula for allocating
renewal funding to state and local housing agencies that better
captures the effects of fluctuating local conditions, while adding a
cost containment incentive and retaining congressional control over
total spending.
It would preserve a key feature of funding policy created last year
in fiscal 2005 appropriations by continuing to base budgets on leasing
and costs in the prior year, but to avoid unfair impacts of using a 3-
month ``snapshot,'' the most recent data available for a 12-month
period would be used.
My amendment would help prevent the displacement of the elderly, the
disabled, and the other tenants of privately owned developments by
guaranteeing stable funding for tenant protection vouchers by exempting
those un-negotiable costs from proration.
If total funding allocations are below the sum of the calculated
budgets, the distribution of funds would be prorated so each housing
agency would receive the same percentage of funds they should have if
fully funded. Thus in times of constrained resources, there would be a
shared sacrifice; each agency would still receive the same proportional
amount.
Agencies currently manage their program over a 12-month period, with
fluctuation in costs and leasing from month-to-month. A 12-month
snapshot would provide a smoother and more accurate reflection of an
agency's program reality than a 3-month snapshot, which could represent
a hill or a valley in its budget year.
I know some may worry that agencies reimbursed for their actual
costs, have no incentive to keep costs down, but all agencies will be
constrained by the amount Congress provides regardless, and they know
that, which in and of itself is a reason to constrain costs. This
formula is simply a more fair way of distributing limited resources.
Mr. Chairman, if Congress wants to legitimately help American
families have access to safe, affordable housing we must work toward a
fair, balanced policy and seriously consider real market factors that
families must face in their communities.
Endorsers of the Proposed Hybrid Voucher Funding Policy
1. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
2. Jody Geese, Executive Director, Belmont Metropolitan
Housing Authority (Martins Ferry, OH).
3. Neal Molloy, Executive Director, Housing Authority of
St. Louis County, Missouri.
4. National Association of Housing and Redevelopment
Officials (detailed proposal only, excluding item 4(a)(i)).
5. National Council of State Housing Agencies.
6. National Leased Housing Association.
7. National Low Income Housing Coalition.
8. Ohio Housing Authorities Conference.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman's amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Permission to Offer Amendment Out of Order
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is informed that the reading of the bill has
not yet progressed to the portion to which the gentleman's amendment
may be offered.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, the response I would make to that
is that it is my understanding that because the funding has been zeroed
out for HOPE VI, we are entitled to raise the amendment and that we
can, in effect, either reach forward or reach backward as far as
capturing these funds goes. That was the information relayed to me by
the Parliamentarian.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is informed that the Clerk has read to page
67 and the gentleman's amendment proposes an insertion on page 73. So
the gentleman's amendment should be held in abeyance until we reach
that point.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. If that is the Chair's ruling, I would ask,
without prejudice, permission to address it now, based on the absence
of other people being on the floor. I would ask unanimous consent to
address it now.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask, is the gentleman asking unanimous
consent to offer his amendment at this point?
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I am, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Alabama
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Alabama:
Page 73, after line 4, insert the following new item:
revitalization of severely distressed public housing (hope vi)
For grants to public housing agencies for demolition, site
revitalization, replacement housing, and tenant-based
assistance grants to projects, as authorized by section 24 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and the
amounts otherwise provided by this Act for ``INDEPENDENT
AGENCIES--General Services Administration--federal buildings
fund'' and for building operations under such item are hereby
reduced by, $60,000,000.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be
[[Page H5430]]
considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes, and let
me begin by thanking the chair of this committee and the ranking member
of the committee for their diligence. We have obviously had a difficult
task this budget year, given the constraints that we have; and I
recognize this whole argument proceeds in that context.
Let me begin by stating that this is a bipartisan amendment that
speaks to a program that was created by George H.W. Bush, the 41st
President of the United States, and by Jack Kemp, the former Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development. In 1989, the Bush administration came
up with a striking insight, that rather than write off a lot of our
inner-city neighborhoods, that we try to revitalize them; that we
sustain a public and private commitment to draw resources back into the
inner-city; and that we literally change the face of abandoned
neighborhoods. And they encapsulated this vision as HOPE VI. It has
been around for 16 years. It is very much a bipartisan creation, and it
is zero funded at this point in this budget.
Mr. Chairman, we ask that $60 million be added, which of course is
literally 1 percent of the value of this whole appropriations bill;
that $60 million be added to sustain this program and to allow its good
works to go forward. And perhaps the best recommendation that I can
offer comes not from my side of the aisle, but it comes, frankly, from
the other side.
Our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent),
speaking on June 6 in a press release announcing the HOPE VI project in
his district said, ``More than just an upgrade, this $75 million
project will be a catalyst for the revitalization of the entire
community, and it will serve as a model of what public housing can and
should be.''
I also quote our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Pickering), announcing a HOPE VI grant in his district in June of
2004: ``This grant represents a significant investment into the overall
economic development and renewal of the East Mississippi region.''
I would next quote our friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), who states that ``This is tremendous news for the
Ben Harbor community. It is another example of local, State and Federal
levels coming together for the betterment of Ben Harbor and surrounding
areas.''
And I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman; but the reason that this
program has captured so much bipartisan support is it draws down our
two best instincts. It draws down our public instinct that we can
reinvest in abandoned communities, and it draws on our private instinct
that we can use private sector dollars.
I am told by CBO, frankly, that this amendment is budget neutral
because of the nature of the way HOPE VI funds are disbursed, the
nature of the way they are drawn down in escrow. So as a practical
matter, there is no significant dollar consequence from this amendment,
no significant dollar objection to this amendment. The only question is
whether or not we believe this is a valuable program.
We are told by some that the program is backlogged. We are told by
some that the program takes a while to work its way to completion. And
I think all of us in this House are hoping to change some of the
structure of HOPE VI, but the changes should not be such that the
program cannot go forward. The thrust of this bipartisan amendment is
that we restore a level of funding, whatever changes can be made
administratively can be made, and we give these communities a chance to
flourish.
Mr. Chairman, I make the very simple proposition that 4 days after
the U.S. Supreme Court has granted unlimited powers of domain to many
of our communities, HOPE VI represents a principled, balanced approach
that respects the needs of people living in the community and draws on
our instincts for the betterment of those communities.
I am happy to be joined by my cosponsor, the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Harris), who has been so stalwart on these issues. I thank her for
lending her bipartisan voice to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Harris).
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague in
offering an amendment that would restore funding for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development's HOPE VI program. Created in 1992 by
former Secretary Jack Kemp and President Bush, this program offers to
renovate existing public housing sites and replace them with new mixed-
income housing.
This grant program has been remarkably successful in its revitalizing
of some of the most troubled and distressed communities. We have all
seen these conditions that exist in public housing developments
throughout the Nation: dilapidated buildings and homes, rampant rodent
and insect infestation, barely functioning plumbing, and sometimes
sewage that flows into our children's playgrounds, with high rates of
violence and crime. These are the conditions that have overtaken too
many of our public housing facilities, the very same conditions in
which too many families are struggling to live and to raise their
children.
This program is aptly named because hope is exactly what these grants
supply to our communities. I can speak firsthand of the outstanding
results of this program I have seen in Tampa, St. Petersburg, and
Bradenton, areas that have been completely revitalized as a result of
HOPE VI.
For example, in Bradenton Village the successful partnership between
Federal and local governments, as well as the private sector, has
restored and revitalized a community that years ago was left crumbling
and suffering. Today, Bradenton Village is a vibrant and thriving area
and a testament to the success of the HOPE VI grant program.
That success is not limited to Florida programs; it has been
remarkable and responsible for rebuilding substandard housing and
replacing them with quality affordable housing across the country. It
is not just about bricks and mortar. By creating more options, giving
consumers more and better choices in housing, education, job training
and job placement, HOPE VI grants transform lives.
{time} 1800
Our amendment, which I am so pleased to offer with the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Davis) who has been a stalwart friend and supporter of
housing programs, will ensure that Hope VI can continue to deliver on
its promises.
The Davis-Harris amendment seeks to restore $60 million to the Hope
VI program so it can continue its mission of revitalizing communities
across America. $60 million is a far cry from the funding Hope VI has
received in the past, but it is enough to keep the program going and
keep hope alive, and we can continue to make a difference in our local
communities.
Let us invest in Hope VI and invest in the strength and possibilities
of our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the Davis-Harris
amendment. Let us keep hope alive.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As further proof of the bipartisan nature of this amendment, the
National Home Builders Association, one of the larger lobbies that
deals with this Congress, has also expressed its support for restoring
these funds.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me respond and give a little history about Hope VI. I have been
on the
[[Page H5431]]
committee for 11 years, and I have seen this item come into view, and I
have seen some of the experiences it has gone through.
First of all, we know Hope VI has had a difficult and varied history
as a 10-year demonstration program. It has worked well in some cases,
but in many more, it has not. The program has been unsuccessful in
fulfilling its mission over the last 10 years and has been extremely
difficult to implement. Consider the following: At the end of last
month there remains $2.8 billion in appropriated funds that have been
awarded to public housing agencies that has not as yet been spent.
Number two, Hope VI has failed to meet its mission. In the beginning,
the idea was to demolish the 100,000 worst units. To date, over 133,000
of the worst units have been demolished, but only half of those were
the result of Hope VI grants. The rest have been done by PHAs with
their own money or with other Federal funds provided elsewhere in this
bill.
Third, there are ample new funds available to continue the program
until it is either fixed or dropped. No 2006 funds are necessary. I was
one of the most supportive of this program when it first came on the
scene, but I have grown tired over the years of seeing the subsidized
failure that took place here.
The fourth item I would mention is that there would be a great
disruption to the GSA programs if the amendment were adopted. The
amendment proposes to seriously delay and reduce funding from seven
important buildings that have been in the planning stage for many
months.
I mention the security at the U.S. mission to the U.N., an FBI
building in Houston, three courthouses in Missouri, Texas and New
Mexico, and two border stations in Texas. These are critical projects
that are scheduled for construction awards, and we plan to use them in
2005. These funds are not excess funds; far from it. They were added by
GSA because of material, price increases, namely steel and concrete.
Without the increases, these projects face real and significant funding
shortfalls.
Last year, the committee had to reprogram funding five separate times
from other projects because of materials' price increases on projects.
I know that there are places in the country that people can point to
where they see this program working. But there are not as many as I
would like, and for the reason I have already stated, I think this
pretty much covers my position and what I feel would be the wrong move.
As much as I know your hearts are strongly for this, I feel we cannot
go there. We have been there, and it does not work. I ask for a ``no''
vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment at the desk
that is a very similar amendment that I will not call up, and I would
ask to be incorporated as a cosponsor of the Davis-Harris amendment, to
be the Davis-Harris-Davis amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I represent more public housing I suspect than any
Member of Congress other than perhaps the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). Cabrini Green,
Henry Horner, Rockwell Gardens, Obla, Ogden Courts, Laundale Courts,
Hilliard Courts, Stateway Gardens, Ida B. Wells, Lakepoint Towers, all
in Chicago.
If Members want to see where Hope VI has been working, we have a
transformation plan in Chicago where thousands of people have been able
to move out of high-rise buildings where they were packed together like
sardines in a can, impossible for socialization to really occur.
I would agree Hope VI has not been perfect, but it has been the best
thing that has happened to those individuals because they have been
able to move from on top of each other. They have been able to have
some breathing room and some space.
I recognize all of the things that the gentleman from Michigan
(Chairman Knollenberg) has pointed out, but let us continue to give
people hope by providing the continuation of Hope VI programming and
Hope VI funding.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
First, in response to the gentleman's observations, with respect to
where this account goes to sustain itself, where it goes to get the $60
million, the GSA building fund, that fund is $7.6 billion out of this
budget. That is a $550 million increase over last year. I do not think
moving $60 million from $7.6 billion is of any consequence.
And I will also reiterate what I said at the outset: Because of the
way that Hope VI funds are drawn down, this amendment is viewed by CBO
as being budget neutral. In fact, it is actually viewed by CBO as being
an amendment that will actually save outlays of around $56 million this
year. So, frankly, there is no dollar consequence this year. And in the
scheme of things, even over the outyears, this is a very well-growing
fund of $7.6 million.
The second point, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has
made observations, and Democrats and Republicans have made, about some
of the weaknesses and some of the delays in Hope VI, and I do not think
there is any opposition on this side of the aisle, and certainly not
from proponents of this amendment, to looking closely at why the
projects do not expedite and why it takes them awhile to move to
completion, but that is not an argument for doing away with the
program. That is an argument to reforming the program.
Mr. Chairman, $60 million will amount to three or four projects
around the country, but that will be three or four neighborhoods that
have been written off and abandoned that can be reclaimed.
Finally, given the small dollar consequence of this, I think we ought
to err on the side of these communities. We ought to err on the side of
the community of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), we
ought to err on the side of the community of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), we ought to err on the side of the community of
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), and so many like it around
the country.
We are in a phase where we can either write off a lot of our inner
city neighborhoods, or we can reinvest in them. We can either consign
them to being blighted places of neglect, or we can rebuild them, and
this does it with our private and public dollars. I urge a ``yes'' vote
on this amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is a sad day when I am rising in
support of an amendment that would provide only $60 million for this
critical program.
But this is the situation in which we find ourselves with this bill,
when priorities of the Republic budget are focused elsewhere and we are
sent a budget that puts the future of our Nation's housing programs in
jeopardy.
While I am relieved to see the Committee has rejected the extremely
unsound proposal to rescind the funding we appropriated for this
current Fiscal Year, I find it hard to comprehend that this bill still
provides no funding for Hope VI.
Just to provide some perspective, we should realize that HOPE VI
funding for the last two fiscal years combined is only roughly half of
the funding level provided in 2003.
I think part of the problem my colleagues have is trying to quantify
the success of this program.
Mr. Chairman, I understand it is very hard to see the accomplishments
of this program on paper.
There are not clear numbers of statistics that make it easy to put it
in a bureaucratic category that proves it is ``demonstrating results.''
But Mr. Chairman, I can tell you personally of the success this
program has brought, not only to communities in my district, but across
the country.
HOPE VI has successfully transformed some of the nation's most
dilapidated public housing into revitalized mixed income communities,
providing a second chance for neighborhoods that often had little or no
hope of improvement.
I have seen the transformation HOPE VI funds have brought to
communities in my district and around New Jersey.
I have stood at communities that have been completely rebuilt, where
renovated townhouses replace crumbling buildings, where senior centers
and new playgrounds invite the community in, instead of shut it out.
Because cycles of poverty and crime are likely to be concentrated at
the most distressed and run-down public housing structures, there is
often little chance for changing
[[Page H5432]]
the surrounding community without providing a clean slate for the site.
HOPE VI proves neighborhoods with that chance.
What I think many have forgotten today is that this program was born
out of strong bipartisan support.
HOPE VI began in 1992 with the express goal of demolishing and
revitalizing 86,000 units of distressed housing.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard arguments that there is no longer a need
for the HOPE VI program.
Are we really saying there are no more crumbling housing structures
that are in need of repair?
Are we telling our communities struggling to find some hope of a
better future that their neighborhood has no chance of revitalization?
That their children will not get a safe playground, that their
family will never have a home they are proud to live in because the
goals of HOPE VI have been accomplished?
Mr. Chairman, while we may have surpassed the original goal of
transforming those 86,000 units, the program has not lost its need or
effectiveness.
The fact remains that there is an ongoing need for fundamental
revitalization in communities across the country that HOPE VI makes
possible and which is currently unmatched by any other program.
HUD itself has noted the effectiveness of HOPE VI in affecting
positive change beyond the housing structures and well into the
community.
Perhaps most importantly, however, HOPE VI funds have become a
critical source for localities to leverage private funds.
HOPE VI is thus not only a mechanism to bring about change, but it
is a mechanism for drawing in critical investment.
Without HOPE VI as the incentive, communities will lose out on
sources that are essential to ensuring true revitalization.
This program is a promise to people that if they live in a building
that is unsafe, dilapidated, and beyond disrepair, we will not abandon
them.
And it is a promise to our communities that our commitment continues
far beyond the public housing structures we provided years ago--that we
will be there to help all of communities be neighborhoods where we
would be proud to raise our families.
Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to abandon our communities.
This program has provided many families and communities throughout
the country hope of a better quality of life and we should not deprive
additional communities of that chance.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis, which
would restore funding to the Homeownership and Opportunity for People
Everywhere program, more commonly referred to as HOPE VI.
The HOPE VI program is one of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's most successful programs, and it is a shame that it is
one of the many valuable and worthwhile Federal programs that the Bush
administration has targeted for elimination.
HOPE VI allows public housing authorities to revitalize
neighborhoods affected by blighted public housing districts, and
transform them into showcases of urban renewal and redevelopment.
For over 15 years, first as Mayor of the City of Alexandria and now
as a Member of Congress, I have been involved in the revitalization of
the former Samuel Madden public housing project, in the area known as
the ``berg.''
While Samuel Madden was once a well-intentioned effort to provide
affordable housing for those in need, it had become mired in
controversy and the focal point of criticisms and problems synonymous
with troubled public housing programs throughout the nation.
In 1999, the Alexandria Redevelopment Housing Authority received
$6.7 million dollars in HOPE VI grant funds to redevelop the 100-unit
Samuel Madden public housing site.
This new project, Chatham Square, is a 152-residential unit
development, 52 of which will be affordable rental homes operated as
public housing units, and 100 of which will be market-rate townhouses
for sale to the public.
This former public housing site has now become an inclusive
community that is a mix of market-rate and subsidized public housing
and continues to serve the needs of moderate and low-income residents.
Last year, I was proud to stand with representatives from the
Alexandria Redevelopment Housing Authority and other City of Alexandria
leaders as we attended the celebration and ribbon-cutting ceremony of
this new development. The cornerstone of the event was the presentation
of house keys to the first residents to move into the development: one
who bought a market-rate townhouse and one who receives assistance with
housing needs.
The Chatham Square project serves as a model for what public housing
should become and identifies a successful mechanism through which this
transformation can occur.
I have already shared with you a successful HOPE VI program from my
congressional district, and there are thousands more all across the
nation.
While the Bush administration may be critical concerning the HOPE VI
program, it does not deserve to be gutted in next year's budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) will
be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment by the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Kennedy), amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green),
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), amendment by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine
Brown) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269,
noes 152, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 336]
AYES--269
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
[[Page H5433]]
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--152
Aderholt
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cox
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
DeLay
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Nunes
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--12
Akin
Clay
Conyers
Culberson
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Lewis (GA)
Murphy
Neal (MA)
Peterson (PA)
Ross
Scott (GA)
____________________