[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 75 (Tuesday, June 13, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3822-H3848]
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,
2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 865 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. 5576.
{time} 1616
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. 5576) 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, 2007, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Dreier in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am pleased to present the House H.R. 5576, the fiscal year 2007
Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill, which was passed out
of committee by a voice vote on June 6.
As you know, this is only the subcommittee's second year with its
current jurisdiction, and I believe the product before the House is
worthy of strong support. It is a fiscally responsible bill funding
high priority programs and eliminating Federal funds for other programs
that are duplicative or ineffective.
I am aware of a number of amendments that would seek to undo these
decisions, but I want people to know we made these decisions by looking
at program performance, effectiveness and a balance of other priorities
in the bill.
The bill before us is at our 302(b) allocation of $67.8 billion in
BA, and provides total budgetary resources, including transportation
obligation limitations and mandatory spending of $139.7 billion, an
increase of $8.5 billion over last year and $1 billion over the
request.
Many of the increases over the budget request are due to House rule
mandating certain funding levels for highways, transit and aviation
programs; restoring CDBG funding in the bill; and some scoring
differences between CBO and OMB.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to salute the hard work of the
subcommittee
[[Page H3823]]
members, both on the majority and minority side of the aisle. The bill
before us is the product of numerous budget hearings and thoughtful
input of each member of the subcommittee, and they deserve to be
saluted.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge the role the subcommittee's
ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, played in assembling
this bill. I consider Mr. Olver a partner in creating the product
before you because his input has been invaluable. I believe this bill
is stronger because of the input that Mr. Olver has provided.
And without much fanfare, I would like to give a quick overview of
what we have been able to accomplish under our allocation.
In transportation, we have met all of the guarantees for surface
transportation and safety and aviation infrastructure as included in
SAFETEA-LU and Vision-100. For FAA operations, we have provided funds
for 132 net new controllers, plus an additional $16 million over the
request for safety inspectors.
I realize there will be a lot of attention paid to Amtrak today,
tonight, and perhaps even tomorrow. The bill provides $900 million, the
same as the budget request, and $394 million below last year's enacted
level. The bill continues our tough stance requiring Amtrak to reduce
losses and achieve operational efficiencies with close supervision by
the Inspector General.
I would emphasize this is not the ``Amtrak'' bill. There are a number
of priorities in this bill and any amendment seeking to just slash
other accounts, accounts that everyone will agree cannot sustain the
cuts proposed by these amendments, is just plainly irresponsible.
The subcommittee had two priorities to meet for HUD in 2007. First
and foremost was the full funding of Section 8 renewals. Failure to
fully meet these commitments would have resulted in thousands of
families losing their assistance and becoming homeless. We have met
those needs.
Our second priority is to restore, to the maximum extent possible,
the formula funding for cities and towns across America through the
Community Development Block Grant. As you know, the administration
proposed to cut this program by $1 billion which was funded at $4.2
billion last year. I am pleased to say we were able to fully restore
funding for CDBG for fiscal year 2007.
To achieve this, 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 starts getting Federal funds, but we have to
make these decisions in order to meet our main funding objectives.
For the IRS, the bill provides $10.5 billion, $110 million below the
budget request and $63 million below last year's enacted level. This
level of funding will allow the IRS to maintain current services with
some hard choices. I should warn everyone that further cuts to the IRS
would severely impact their ability to meet their mission. I also note
we took the first step to restructure the IRS accounts to more closely
align with their core missions, taxpayer services and enforcement.
For the Judiciary, the bill provides sufficient funding to maintain
the current services of the Federal Judiciary, including rent and
personnel increases.
For the District of Columbia, we provided the budget request for
Federal payments to the District for tuition assistance, court costs
and school improvement. We were able to fund the Navy Yard Metro
Station through FTA's New Starts program, and provide $1 million for
the Central Library improvements. As for the District of Columbia's
local budget, the bill appropriates the budget and financial plan by
reference, carries many of the same general provisions of the past, and
includes no new riders.
We restored funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program to $227 million, slightly more than last year. Executive Office
of the President programs are funded at the requested levels.
All in all, after much hard work and discussion, I believe we have a
balanced bill before us. No, we didn't 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 I believe is our
responsibility. Also, we have included Member priorities in this bill.
I would especially like to note that Member projects in this bill are
less than one-third of what they were in last year's bill. I will
repeat that: Less than one-third of what they were in last year's bill,
demonstrating yet again the committee's commitment to earmark reform
and the fact that it is real. Each project was a part of the budget
request or authorized under an existing program in law, and requested
by a Member of Congress as being important to the district and the
people they represent.
This is a fiscally sound bill, scored repeatedly by CBO. There are no
gimmicks, no date changes, no unreal savings.
Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a balanced bill and I urge the
Committee's support for it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the gentleman from
Michigan and his staff for the constructive relationship we continue to
build. As Chairman Knollenberg put this bill together, he and his staff
considered concerns raised by the majority and the minority coming from
subcommittee members, full committee members, and the general
membership of the House. Where he could help, he resolved many of those
concerns, and I thank him for that.
I also want to thank the excellent staff on both sides of the aisle
for their hard work on this legislation. On the majority side, Dena
Baron, the majority clerk, Cheryle Tucker, Jason Woolwine, Tom
McLemore, Tammy Hughes, David Napolielo, Alice Hogans and Peter Lee.
And on the minority side, Kate Hallahan and Bob Bonner, and from my
staff Matt Washington and David Pugach.
This is only the second time this complex bill has come to the House
floor, and I appreciate the work and the long hours that each and every
one of those staff members have put in.
I am grateful for the increase in the subcommittee's outlay
allocation adopted in the full Appropriations Committee, but I said in
the subcommittee markup and full committee markup as well that the
allocation to this subcommittee is inadequate to meet the needs, and
that is still true. The allocation, even as revised, forced Chairman
Knollenberg and staff into a struggle to plug as many holes as they
could as creatively as they could. In that process, several serious
omissions and cuts proposed in the President's budget have been
restored, notably CDBG funding, essential air services, additionally
safety inspectors under FAA, and for construction of elderly and
disabled housing, and for funding the important Navy Yard Metro Station
in our capital city. That was no small feat.
I particularly want to commend Chairman Knollenberg for his
thoughtful approach to our capital city's budget which is part of this
bill. While the District of Columbia makes up only a small portion of
our combined bill, the value of the initiatives funded through this
bill cannot be understated, and I thank Chairman Knollenberg for his
commitment to ensuring no new policy riders were placed on the District
of Columbia. I sincerely hope that we can continue to work on striking
a balance between the congressional responsibilities for the District
of Columbia with the desire of Washingtonians to have a direct say with
how the District is governed.
Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill on final passage, but if this
were a conference report I would have to oppose its passage, and I want
to take a few minutes to examine what I believe drives this bill this
year and in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the impact that meeting
SAFETEA-LU guarantees is having on other agencies and accounts in the
bill. I believe that the transportation guarantees placed on this
subcommittee by the authorizers ties the hands of this committee from
properly funding other domestic programs included in this bill that are
just as important.
[[Page H3824]]
As this bill was drafted, authorized guarantees had to be met or this
bill is subject to a point of order. For example, in FHWA the
President's budget met all of the SAFETEA-LU guarantees. However, in
FAA and FTA, the President's budget was well below the authorized
level. The President's request was $607 million below the authorized
level in the facilities and equipment account and $950 million below in
airport improvement. In FTA, the Capital Investment Grants Program was
$100 million below the authorized level. These shortfalls come to a
total of over $1.6 billion. The monies being added to the
subcommittee's allocation allowed the chairman to bring these items to
the guaranteed level.
I believe that the transportation guarantees are strangling other
agencies in our bill. Without honoring the SAFETEA guarantees, the
gentleman from Michigan could have increased funding for several key
programs in this bill. For example, in HUD we could have used these
funds for brownfields, HOPE VI and rural housing, which were all zeroed
out. The additional funds could have been used to shore up the
underfunded public housing operating fund and the public housing
capital fund, or to add to section 8 tenant and project-based voucher
programs which were cut below the President's request. The items that I
have listed are only the tip of the iceberg, and the process I have
described can only get worse as the years go by.
Most of these shortfalls that I believe must be improved are within
HUD, but also includes the lone transportation item that does not have
the protection of an authorization; namely, Amtrak. I had planned to
offer an amendment to increase funding for these programs; but,
unfortunately, the majority of this House has once again shown that tax
cuts for the wealthiest few in our society are more important than
housing programs for our most needy citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by the cuts that we have been forced to
bring forward. I hope that we will be able to continue to improve the
bill as it moves forward in the process. We are early in the process.
There is much work to be accomplished on this bill between now and a
final conference report.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Jackson) for a colloquy with the chairman.
{time} 1630
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy
with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed to learn that this bill did not
contain funding for the SouthEast Service Line of Metra, the Chicago
area's commuter rail service. I have provided the chairman with a
letter from Phil Pagano, the executive director of Metra, which I will
include in the Record.
In the letter, Mr. Chairman, Metra states that it has a package of
New Start projects called Metra Connects that were authorized by
SAFETEA-LU. The SouthEast Service and the Star Line are two projects in
that package that are new rail projects. Both are significant commuter
rail projects for the northeastern Illinois region, and both projects
currently are progressing on the same time schedule and are at similar
stages of development. During the deliberation SAFETEA-LU bill, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agreed that both lines
would move forward and be funded equitably. Without funding for the
SouthEast Service, this agreement is in jeopardy.
I, along with the rest of the Illinois delegation, appreciate and
would like to thank the chairman for the money already included for
Metra's other new Star projects, and I understand that money overall is
tight.
Will the chairman work with me to try to fund this funding in
conference?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Yes, I most certainly will work with the gentleman
from Illinois on this project.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the chairman, and I look forward to
working with him to make sure that the transportation needs of
northeastern Illinois are met.
Northeast Illinois Regional,
Commuter Railroad Corporation,
Chicago, IL, June 13, 2006.
Chairman Joe Knollenberg,
Appropriation Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and
District of Columbia, House Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Knollenberg: I am writing to express Metra's
concern that funds were provided for the STAR Line but not
for the SouthEast Service (SES) New Start project as part of
the FY '07 Transportation Appropriations Bill.
As you know, Metra has a package of New Start projects
called Metra Connects that were authorized in SAFETEA-LU. The
SouthEast Service and the STAR Line are two projects in that
package that are new rail projects. Both are significant
commuter rail projects for the northeast Illinois region.
Currently, both projects are progressing on the same time
schedule and are at similar stages of development. During the
deliberation of the SAFETEA-LU bill, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee agreed that both lines would move
forward and be funded equitably. Without funding for the
SouthEast Service, this agreement is in jeopardy.
We urge the chairman to correct this in conference. Thank
you again for your support for Metra and our New Start
programs.
Sincerely,
Philip A. Pagano,
Executive Director.
Mr. OLVER. And I can assure the gentleman that I too will work to try
to correct this inequity.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a
colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that included in the
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2007 is $227 million for the Office of National
Drug Control Policy's High Impact Drug Trafficking Areas Program, an
increase of $2.27 million over last year's enacted level; is that
correct?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the Nevada HIDTA office has done an
outstanding job making my State's communities safer. Last year alone,
they were successful in removing $12 million worth of narcotic from the
streets of Nevada. While the HIDTA office is currently funded at a
baseline of 1.4 million, rather than the 2.5 million or more that the
other 26 HIDTA offices are funded at, in my district in southern
Nevada, which sees thousands of new people a month moving into the area
and tens of millions of visitors a year, coupled with the epidemic of
methamphetamine and other drug abuses, would the chairman agree that
the Nevada HIDTA office funding should be increased to a level more
reflective of the challenges the district faces?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to respond.
I share your concerns. And I thank my colleague for raising this very
important issue today. He correctly points out that the bill includes
$227 million for HIDTA, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
program. The subcommittee has funded this important program again this
year, even though the President requested that the program be
transferred to the Department of Justice at a reduced level of funding.
I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Nevada as this bill
moves forward. We can work together to make sure that the issue of
methamphetamine and other drug trafficking as it relates to Nevada is
forthrightly addressed in the final budget for this account.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his offer and look
forward to working with him.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez) to engage in a colloquy.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman and ranking member, some public housing
authorities nationwide are feeling the crunch from several years worth
of budget constraints and the New York City Housing Authority, the
largest PHA in the country, is not different. NYCHA is facing a $168
million shortfall in part because of lack of flexibility in how they
can use the three main funding streams: section 8, public housing
operating and capital funds. Limited fungibility of funding streams
will go a long way in helping PHAs to creatively address funding
constraints.
[[Page H3825]]
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that as the appropriations process moves
forward we can continue to discuss a solution to alleviate these
funding constraints by providing limited flexibility in the use of
funding streams.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I recognize the difficult situation that some PHAs
across the country are facing. Providing flexibility to housing
agencies while at the same time ensuring that HUD can effectively
manage its programs is a no-cost solution that, if administered
properly, will ensure continued service to low-income families.
However, at the same time, NYCHA and other PHAs need to make sure that
they are taking full advantage of the current flexibility that exists
between the public housing operating and capital funds. As this process
continues, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from New
York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to work on
this issue.
Mr. OLVER. I appreciate the gentlewoman for bringing forward this
issue. Public housing authorities and the families they serve are
struggling. And I thank the chairman for his willingness to continue to
engage in these discussions as we have already had part of that
discussion at an earlier stage in the process.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure now to yield to the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis), for whatever time he may wish to consume.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much the chairman. I must
say I have come to the floor simply to express my deep appreciation for
the work that the chairman is doing on this very important measure, a
bill that drives much of the infrastructure of the country, as well as
providing housing programs. He and Mr. Olver have done a great job on
this bill under circumstances where they are under great pressure.
There is never quite enough money available to do all that we might
like, so it takes very, very positive bipartisan effort to make sure
that we provide balance as we restrain spending at the same time.
It is a very fine bill. And I might mention further that these
gentlemen, together, are now today producing the eighth bill out of 11
FY 07 Appropriations bills off the floor. It is our intention to
complete all those bills by the 4th of July break. You are giving us a
fantastic demonstration today that anything is possible if people are
willing to work together. So it is great to be with you. And thank you
very much for your effort.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of
the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain to the House that at
this point it appears that there are more than 70 amendments pending,
and that if each and every one of them only takes 10 minutes, 5 minutes
a side, we will be here through all of today, through all of Wednesday,
through all of Friday and perhaps into next week. So I would ask
Members to keep that in mind and, if possible, to relinquish their
ability to offer conflicting or duplicative amendments. I think points
can be made without beating a dead horse five times over.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who is a member of the subcommittee.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman
Knollenberg for your leadership, sir, Michigander, appreciate working
with you. And to our ranking member, Mr. Olver, thank you very much for
working together. As I always say, when the chairman and ranking
members work together, it certainly makes our subcommittee work better.
I rise in support of our TTHUD bill, that is Transportation,
Treasury, HUD, IRS and several other agencies put together in an
acronym we call TTHUD, the TTHUD bill, some $67 billion bill for
transit agencies, for our roads and bridges, for our housing needs, and
Treasury and the like.
I think the bill is a good bill for what we had to work with, but it
is far short of the needs that America has to fund its highway system,
to fund its transit system, also for community development. I think
housing in this bill takes a major hit, and it is so unfortunate. HOPE
VI, which is a program for distressed housing in mainly urban America,
has been zeroed out. I think that is unfortunate. And I know you can't
fund a war at over $350 billion and think we can, at the same time,
invest in America. That is why I think we must bring our troops home in
the most practical time, and redeploy our troops around the theater
area so that America is safe, and that we protect our interests at the
same time.
But working with the dollars that we have, the HUD part of this bill
has been devastated. The brownfield area has been zeroed out. Together,
the EPA, which has money in it for remediation of land that will be
developed, there is a small amount of money there. It is only there for
remediation. The HOPE VI monies are for building, the actual building
of houses, and together with the Community Development Block Grant
money will help distressed areas and mainly urban areas of our country
be able to put people in affordable housing, to have people live in
safe housing, to offer their children hope for the future because a
house is the most basic thing they need, one of the most basic things.
This bill does not do a good job with that. And I know as we go on, you
will hear more amendments trying to put back brownfield money, trying
to put back HOPE VI money, and I support that.
I also want to bring up in this bill the section 8 housing choice
voucher program. The way that the money is distributed in that program
needs to be fixed. They take a snapshot of 3 months of the expenses,
rather than a 12-month snapshot of the expenses in those section 8
housing use. Thereby, States like mine, we lose millions of dollars
that could be helpful in families needing housing, adequate, safe clean
housing. So I would hope that as we go on, we take a look at that. And
as I asked the chairman last year to take a look at our State's, not
just our State's, but our choice house voucher program, where we are
being penalized and losing money that we ought to have because of a
flawed formula. This does not look at the 12-month expenses, but only
the 3-month expenses. And I might add not the 3 months expenses that
have the higher home heating costs.
But overall, the TTHUD bill is one that can be supported. There will
be amendments offered. Some of them are some that I will support.
Housing development and providing assistance to urban America has to be
strengthened.
I look forward to working with the chairman and our ranking member to
make sure that we can build back some of these real programs that
America needs. This administration has no urban program for
development, for our schools, for our health centers; and I contend as
we move forward in this process, we must pay attention to adequate,
safe, clean housing. This bill falls far short.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), also a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member
for the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend our subcommittee Chair,
Mr. Knollenberg, and my ranking member, Mr. Olver. We have a very
interesting subcommittee. We cover a lot of ground, a lot of very
interesting subject matters. And I must tell you that our chairman not
only permits a wide range of debate and discussion and questioning,
perhaps he even encourages it, because he certainly hasn't stopped me
and he has been very, very generous in the way he has treated the
members of the minority, and I thank him.
My ranking member shows great leadership on all of our issues, and
his work is reflected in this bill which, while we all wish there were
a lot more money because more money is deserving for this bill, I
believe he has managed to reach the kind of compromises that were
possible, given this shortage in money. Of course, I am disappointed in
the amount of money for Amtrak. I am disappointed in some other
matters; but as a former mayor, for example, I am delighted at the
Community
[[Page H3826]]
Development Block Grant money because that money is so critical.
{time} 1645
And, of course, I would be remiss if I did not thank the majority
staff and the minority staff for tolerating my obsession with various
items, including Teterboro Airport, and once again the subcommittee has
chosen to protect this airport from abuse. It is not a partisan matter,
as the majority and minority have acknowledged. It is a matter that
appeals to all the people in my district, and, again, I am just so
grateful.
I want to again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
kindness and cooperation throughout this year in the consideration of
this bill.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for a colloquy.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with
Chairman Knollenberg on this particular issue.
First of all, I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the
ranking member, Mr. Olver, for their hard work on this particular bill.
I also appreciate this opportunity to speak to Chairman Knollenberg on
this issue that is very important to my congressional district.
My congressional district abuts the U.S.-Mexico border, which is very
dependent on trade. Interstate Highway 35, the ``NAFTA Corridor,'' runs
from Laredo in my district, throughout the San Antonio area, all the
way up to San Marcos, all three areas which are large population
centers.
Zapata County, which is in my district, is sandwiched between Webb
County and Starr County, both Border Commercial Zones. Zapata is not
currently designated a Border Commercial Zone, and consequently it
loses out on economic development opportunities since Mexican trucks
cannot conduct business in Zapata County. The Zapata business community
has been asking for this designation. This area of the country is
economically challenged, and the opportunity to engage in trade with
Mexico will make a big difference in local business community
development.
For example, the Zapata County master plan initiative includes an
airport expansion project that includes a cargo facility and will offer
shorter, direct flights into Zapata from Monterrey, Mexico. Freight
companies in Mexico have expressed a desire to build warehouses and
open a facility. In order to get a commercial zone, it takes an
application process, but it is a long, burdensome process for a goal
that is quite simple.
I am asking for your help, Mr. Chairman, to expedite Zapata County's
application to be designated a Border Commercial Zone. Getting this
locality on the fast track will be good for the local residents and
businesses in this area for economic development.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your support to help Zapata County apply
for and expedite the process to become a Border Commercial Zone, and I
thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would just say that I agree to work with you on
this. I appreciate your bringing it forward. And we will also work with
the FMCSA on this issue. So thank you.
Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the chairman.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I would be happy,
especially after that trip through his district, to work with the
gentleman from Texas on the issue that he has raised.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I too understand that there
are tremendous challenges that are faced by the subcommittee with its
interesting and broad jurisdiction.
I rise to speak on one particular element that actually should help
the subcommittee, and that is dealing with the Small Starts provision.
The Small Starts provision was carefully crafted in last year's
reauthorization after 3 years of work with people around the country to
provide a simple, cost-effective way to reduce congestion, to promote
economic development, and to streamline the bureaucracy, instead of the
massive effort that is undertaken for the New Starts, the elaborate
cost-effectiveness, the massive amount of money that is involved, and I
know and appreciate that. I appreciate what the committee has done in
approving the administration's recommendation for a project in my
community. These are difficult, expensive, hard projects. That is why I
have been working on the Small Starts. The Small Starts projects are
ones that do not need massive Federal outlay. Small Starts do not mean
that you have to rip up communities for weeks, months, in some cases
years to construct them. The technology is available now to build a
streetcar, a trolley, 3 weeks per block face. That's three weeks per
block. They do not need to be massive projects with huge amounts of
money.
The program of Small Starts was designed to be smaller amounts that
will deal with relieving congestion and relieving the necessity of
other more elaborate efforts for economic development.
We have 84 communities around the country with people that are
looking at the streetcar technology and using the Small Starts program.
If the committee will work with us and the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee with what we have authorized in SAFETEA-LU, we
have the potential of providing the same sort of economic jolt and the
relief of congestion without the costs, without the elaborate
procedure, without the delay, and without the community disruption that
are attendant with light rail and heavy rail.
I was disappointed that the subcommittee decided not to be funding
it, but I am more concerned about the language in the subcommittee
report that betrays a lack of understanding about why we developed this
program to begin with. It is something that can help large cities like
Chicago, where there is great interest in it; small cities like
Kenosha, Wisconsin; and cities in between like Little Rock and
Charlotte. And I would hope that as this legislation works its way
through Congress that we will be able to work with the subcommittee and
people in the other body to be able to harness the potential savings,
economic development, congestion mitigation that can be a part of the
Small Starts program.
I would think given the very difficult task that this subcommittee
faces, with which I sympathize, that we ought to embrace this approach
because in the long run it will give you more bang for the buck, more
satisfied communities, more reduction in congestion, and more economic
opportunities.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this for a moment and look
forward to working with the subcommittee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to point out to the gentleman from Oregon that in
fact the guarantee, and it is a guarantee under the TEA-LU bill, is
included in what is called the Capital Investments Fund. So there is
money available there. But I need also to point out that we have been
told at the subcommittee level that the Department of Transportation,
the FTA, will not have rules and regulations until at least a year from
now, maybe 15 months from now, which is the very end of the next fiscal
year.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, we are having some interesting ongoing
conversations with the Department of Transportation. I went across the
street to visit with him at FTA immediately after the enactment of the
legislation. There is no need for us to delay this process for months
and years.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with that point.
I think that if people from the authorizing committee will make that
point strongly to the Department of Transportation, that would be very
helpful because I agree with virtually everything the gentleman has
said. This is a process that ought to get moving, but the money is
there. We can deal with this later on in this process. We are at
[[Page H3827]]
an early stage in the process. They need to get the rules and
regulations out faster than 15 months from now.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 4 years, I will
not offer an amendment to this bill to block the implementation of the
May 2003 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 regulations for
contracting out work that is performed by Federal employees around the
country.
The difference this year, Mr. Chairman, is that Chairman Knollenberg
and Ranking Member Olver agreed to my request to include satisfactory
language in the bill that is before us. I want to thank them for
addressing this issue this year.
Both Federal Government employees and private contractors had serious
legitimate concerns and complaints about the A-76 competitive sourcing
process. The amendment I offered in past years essentially required OMB
to go back to the drawing board and develop a uniform competitive
sourcing process that addresses everybody's concerns. Despite strong
objections and veto threats from the White House, we had spirited
debates in the three previous appropriations cycles on the Van Hollen
amendment, and each year the House approved the amendment with
bipartisan majorities.
We passed the Van Hollen amendment for the last 3 years because we
recognized that the contracting out process was unfair. That was
evidenced by the fact that we passed a number of bills to change the
contracting out process on an ad hoc basis in numerous Federal
agencies, including Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and
Agriculture. But the result was a patchwork of inconsistent
regulations. The Van Hollen amendment was intended to replace that
patchwork of inconsistent regulations with a uniform set of rules fair
to all. It did not get rid of the competitive sourcing rules. In
essence, it required OMB to go back to the rules that were in place
before May 2003 until it fashioned a new set of rules that make sense
for everybody.
In fiscal year 2005 the Senate approved language similar to the Van
Hollen amendment, but even though both Houses approved similar language
it did not survive a closed-door TTHUD conference. Last year, in fiscal
year 2006, the Senate approved language that was widely viewed as
acceptable to the White House, however begrudgingly, and that language
survived the conference and was signed into law. That language provided
funding for A-76 competitions that allowed Federal workers to present
their own most efficient organization, MEO, bid in a competitive
sourcing competition, and required private contractor bids to provide
for a minimum cost differential, MCD, savings of at least 10 percent or
$10 million over the MEO bid. While these public-private competition
requirements did not address all of the concerns of Federal employees
pertaining to appeal rights, these requirements were considerable
improvements in the competitive sourcing process.
But now, Mr. Chairman, we are in a brand new fiscal year cycle and
once again we need to address critical matters related to the
contracting out process. We should not have to do this every year in
the appropriations process, Mr. Speaker, but we will repeat this debate
year after year until Congress takes definitive action and authorizes
competitive sourcing regulations that are fair to Federal employees and
private contractors.
This year is somewhat different, however. This year, Chairman
Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver have had the foresight to include
competitive souring language in the base fiscal year 2007
appropriations bill that mirrors the MEO/MCD language that was signed
into law last year. Therefore, there is no need to offer the amendment
I have offered in the past.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the TTHUD appropriations bill on the
floor today includes forward-looking language pertaining to A-76
competitive sourcing that precludes the need to offer my amendment
again this year. I look forward to working with the leadership of the
Appropriations Committee and with the authorizers on the House
Committee on Government Reform in the future to devise a permanent fix
to the A-76 process that is fair to Federal workers and private
contractors and that provides American taxpayers with the efficient,
cost-effective and quality services they demand and deserve.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment
that the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 does not fully fund
the Help America Vote Act, HAVA.
HAVA was passed in the wake of the 2000 election, and authorized
almost $4 billion to improve the administration of elections in this
country. The 2004 election was a strong indication that there is much
work yet to be done in the area of election reform in this country. And
yet here we are, fast approaching Federal elections which are to be the
first ones that take place under virtually all of HAVA's requirements,
and hundreds of millions of dollars in funds authorized under the bill
remain unappropriated.
Although the appropriations bill before us includes almost $17
million in funding for the Election Assistance Commission, EAC, which
is nearly $3 million more than was appropriated to the EAC for fiscal
year 2006, it still provides no funding whatsoever to help States meet
their voting system requirements--especially the disability and
language access requirements--under title III of the act. HAVA
authorized $3 billion in so-called ``requirements payments,'' and has
to date appropriated only $2.328 billion. States across the Nation are
struggling to meet HAVA's voting system requirements, and $672 million
in authorized funds remain unappropriated. And not one dime of that
amount has been requested in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
nor provided for in this appropriations measure.
HAVA also authorized $100 million to promote access to the polls for
disabled voters, of which only $44 million has been appropriated to
date, and $40 million for protection and advocacy systems, of which
just under $17 million has been appropriated to date. I understand that
the Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations bill to be
reported out of committee today will include approximately $11 million
in funding for the former accessibility grants, and approximately $5
million in additional funding for the latter protection and advocacy
systems. However, these new appropriations still leave a total of
approximately $63 million in authorized disability access payments
unappropriated.
There are certainly many important demands upon us, but I ask you,
Mr. Chairman, what is more important in a democracy than the fairness
and integrity of the electoral system. I rise today to register my
disappointment that the measure before us provides no funding to help
States meet their title III requirements under HAVA, and to urge my
colleagues to work with me when the Departments and Labor and Health
and Humans Services appropriations bill comes to the floor next week to
fully fund HAVA's disability access payments.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
5576, the appropriations act for the Departments of Transportation,
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development.
I want to note two important Houston-area projects that received
funding in this legislation: METRO Solutions and the Harrisburg grade
separation.
The $2.5 million for METRO is a very small amount compared to our
need for transit investment in Houston, particularly for light rail.
However, we are very grateful for this amount, because in previous
years members of our Houston delegation blocked any funding in this
bill for Houston light rail.
We will never know how many millions went to other projects around
the country because our delegation was not united behind a plan.
Thankfully, this situation has now changed, and we have a commitment
from our delegation to pursue $1 billion over 10 years for Houston
light rail.
Unfortunately, it does not look like we will be able to meet that
commitment. As a result, the process at the FTA is taking on much
greater importance.
METRO must cut through the red-tape at FTA and get approval for their
project and a full funding grant agreement if the Northside Line and
East End Line are going to be a reality.
We are going to need all the funding we can get if we want to upgrade
the BRT to light rail as quickly as possible to meet the expectations
of the voters in the referendum.
The other important project for Houston is the Harrisburg Grade
Separation. The bill contains $300,000 to get this project started in
the design phase.
East End Houston has entirely too many inconvenient and unsafe grade
crossings, and a grade separation at Harrisburg will provide easy
access and prevent rail/auto/truck accidents for area residents.
We have just started construction on our Manchester grade separation,
so it is fitting that we are starting at the beginning of the process
for another very important intersection.
This project will fit in well with the effort to reorganize the
freight rail system for Harris County and surrounding counties, because
the most relief from freight rail traffic needs to be in the areas with
the most impact.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the
subcommittee and the full committee for their work on this bill and
also thank our Houston area appropriator, John Culberson for his help,
particularly with the METRO funding.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
[[Page H3828]]
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. 5576
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, 2007, and for other
purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary,
$92,558,000, of which not to exceed $2,255,000 shall be
available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to
exceed $717,000 shall be available for the immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $15,681,000 shall be
available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to
exceed $11,684,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed
$10,002,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed
$2,319,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $25,108,000
shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Administration; not to exceed $1,932,000 shall be
available for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed
$1,478,000 shall be available for the Office of the Executive
Secretariat; not to exceed $707,000 shall be available for
the Board of Contract Appeals; not to exceed $1,286,000 shall
be available for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization; not to exceed $2,722,000 for the Office
of Intelligence and Security; not to exceed $12,281,000 shall
be available for the Office of the Chief Information Officer;
and not to exceed $4,386,000 shall be available for the
Office of Emergency Transportation: 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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Knollenberg:
Page 2, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000)''.
Page 72, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $20,748,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to reaching ahead in the amendment
process to get to this point?
Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, following the full committee amendment
process, CBO's scoring of our bill resulted in slightly more than $20.7
million in savings.
This amendment will place this funding in the IRS operations support
account, which was reduced by $50 million below the President's
request.
I understand that this has been cleared with the minority, and
therefore I ask for the adoption of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
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 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $23,814,000)''.
Page 2, line 11, after the second dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $79,000)''
Page 2, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $26,000)''.
Page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $650,000)''.
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $150,000)''.
Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,602,000)''.
Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,319,000)''.
Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $3,297,000)''.
Page 2, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,932,000)''.
Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,478,000)''.
Page 3, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $12,281,000)''.
Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $4,090,000)''.
Page 37, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $34,650,000)''.
Page 38, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $129,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $85,000,000)''.
Page 58, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,693,000)''.
Page 58, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,693,000)''.
Page 192, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,179,990)''.
Page 194, line 1, after ``2007'' insert the following:
``(reduced by $559,641,000)''.
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?
There was no objection.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate
on my amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, 10
minutes by the proponent and 10 minutes by the opponent, equally
divided and controlled by each.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
{time} 1700
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today offering this amendment
with my good friend, Mr. Oberstar from Minnesota, the ranking member of
the full Transportation Committee. I will yield him half of my time
when he arrives on the floor.
Unlike aviation, highways and transit, there is no dedicated funding
for investing in our Nation's passenger rail service. This is a pretty
simple amendment. All it does is restore $214 million to the Amtrak
account, taking it to $1.114 billion, which is still about $300 million
less than we had during the course of last year's discussion.
As the chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee, we have had exhaustive
hearings, oversight hearings, dealing with the Amtrak situation, and we
have done a number of things. The CEO has been fired by the board. We
have looked at their food service. They have entered into a new food
service contract. If you look at this bill, and I want to commend Mr.
Knollenberg, because last year he had an impossible task. The President
sent up a budget of zero for Amtrak. We had an amendment process that
we went through this time.
This time we are up to $900 million in the bill, which I give him
great credit for. But if you look at that $900 million, there is only
$500 million for capital expenditures, out of which has to come a debt
service of $280 million, which only leaves $220 million for the capital
needs of this country for Amtrak, for passenger rail.
There is nothing for operation, and I know that the response to that
is going to be that there are some incentive grants in the bill. But
that really does not get the thing done.
Mr. Chairman, we have tried to be judicious with this amendment and
looked for pots of money located within the bill solely within the
jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I
think we have achieved that.
I believe it is a good amendment and I urge adoption by my
colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
[[Page H3829]]
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding
for Amtrak by gutting and eliminating critical programs, including
safety programs, resulting in reductions in force at several agencies.
This bill was put together by making some very difficult decisions to
balance a wide variety of critical needs from some very diverse
programs. The amendment would undermine the difficult work done by the
subcommittee by haphazardly making unrealistic and undisciplined cuts
throughout the bill.
It would cut the Office of the Secretary of Transportation by 25
percent. That is well below the fiscal year for 2006. This will result
in reductions in force for OST and will impact mission critical
operations, including security planning as well as coordination and
response efforts.
These areas proved critical during last year's hurricanes, and we
have now entered the hurricane season again. It would eliminate the
critical rail safety research programs under the Federal Railroad
Administration. This is a little confusing, because several years ago
it is this research program that pinpointed the problem associated with
Amtrak's brakes on the Acela and found the solution and allowed Acela
to get up and running again.
The amendment would severely reduce funds for the Federal Maritime
Commission and the Surface Transportation Board, resulting in RIFs for
both of these agencies, and cutting the Federal Buildings Fund by $560
million will leave the fund without the resources it needs to build
critical, secure crossings on our Southern border with Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, it would not strengthen the Federal buildings against
threatening terrorism attacks. Let me repeat this. Vote for this
amendment and you are voting against building border crossings on the
U.S.-Mexico border and against funding to secure the Federal buildings
against terrorism.
Let me go a little further and explain that these cuts would
completely eliminate GSA's new construction of six border stations at
the crossing at McAllen, Texas, at El Paso, Texas, Santa Teresa, New
Mexico, Columbus, New Mexico, Calexico, California, and Nogales,
Arizona.
In addition, the amendment would eliminate the Food and Drug
Administration Montgomery County, Maryland Project, as well as remove
the delivery facility in Anacostia for mail sorting for the Federal
Government, something that is sadly needed, and with the threat of
anthrax and other deadly substances in government mail.
Repairs and alterations to Federal buildings will be stopped or
slowed, repairs and alterations that are needed to secure government
workers and the general public from possible terrorist attacks.
Mr. Chairman, cutting border security and funds to protect Federal
workers against terrorism is irresponsible. I ask my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I used, please?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, while I credit my colleague
from Michigan for doing a great deal of work on this bill, and I know
it is a tremendously difficult bill, rail passenger service in the
United States is the worst in all of the industrialized world.
It does not have to be that way. Germany, France, the United Kingdom,
Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Spain and Portugal have better rail
service, more rapid rail service, more frequent rail service, more
efficient rail service than the United States. It does not have to be
this way.
The degradation of the Amtrak system goes on apace, whether it is the
right-of-way or equipment. Equipment needs to be replaced. Right-of-way
needs to be maintained. The Canton area, the electric, the Canton area
in the Northeast Corridor needs to be maintained as well. Witness the
blackout just 2 weeks ago.
We need to have a modern, efficient, dependable rail passenger
service in the United States. The only way we can do it is to fund it.
It is the most efficient way to carry people. And I must say that no
system in any industrialized country in the world is profitable. They
are all subsidized. It is part of the cost of doing business. It is
part of the cost of running an efficient government. It is part of the
cost of keeping our economy going.
Please support the LaTourette amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire about how much time is
left on our side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of
the subcommittee, Todd Tiahrt from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development has done a fine
job. We are a nation of priorities. Each year we must decide where the
resources that have been given to us by the taxpayers will be spent.
This bill is a good example. The chairman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) made good decisions on the allocations within this bill.
The subcommittee worked its will, making sure that the allocations were
filled to the best of our ability.
Then the bill went to the full committee appropriations process, and
the amendments were conducted. And again the will of the committee was
worked. Not all of the requests were funded. It is the same with
Amtrak. Their request was not funded, and it is because Amtrak is
undergoing some financial stress that they have asked for more funding.
But this is not new to our economy. Other portions of our economy
have also been under financial stress. For example, the airlines have
been faced with similar shortfalls in revenue. And yet when they were
faced with these shortfalls, they undertook a search of every cost.
They went to their workers. They went to their pilots. They went to
their flight attendants. They went to the mechanics. And they asked
them, could you help out under this current period of financial stress?
And the unions and the workers all weighed in to help with the cost
structure.
The same thing happened in our auto manufacturing industry, where the
United Auto Workers weighed in and helped bear some of the reductions
in costs so that they could keep their companies afloat.
They came to the table, they did the right thing for their jobs, for
their families, and they made themselves more competitive in times of
financial stress. Now we come to Amtrak. Amtrak has looked at some of
their costs, but their workers have never weighed in.
Mr. Chairman, I think when you look at the costs that Amtrak is
asking for, we need to look across the spectrum, at the union
agreements, at the wages that are being paid, at the benefits, as well
as the cost of the infrastructure, the cost to operate, the energy
costs, so that each and every facet of Amtrak weighs into these costs.
We have done that. The reforms are in place. We hope to see the reforms
completed,
Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we have these reforms that we
have put in the bill become enacted, so that we can take each facet of
the cost in Amtrak into the formula to come up with a plan to make sure
that Amtrak is solvent in the future.
I thank the gentleman from Michigan for spending the time on these
allocations within this bill. I think he has done a fine job. I would
oppose the gentleman from Ohio's amendment, let the reforms take place
and make sure that Amtrak is solvent in the future.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we still
have 7 minutes remaining on our side of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Oberstar from
Minnesota, the co-author of the amendment, and ask unanimous consent
that
[[Page H3830]]
he be permitted to yield time from that 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment shows quite clearly how
difficult the job was for the chairman in the first place, and that it
is very difficult to find offsets for the kind of money that was
necessary to put together this amendment.
But all of the offsets come out of the jurisdiction of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the full Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. And I think that it makes it clear
that if the offsets are used in this way to fund Amtrak, which is
needed, that then we will go to the later stages in the process and try
to make corrections in the later stages of the process.
Mr. Chairman, it will be no more difficult to re-fund the items that
have been taken out of their own jurisdiction, out of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's jurisdiction, it will be
no more difficult to fund them later than it is to fund Amtrak now.
Clearly with this amendment, we will still be $180 million below the
enacted number for 2006, and the Amtrak board has asked this year for
$1.598 billion. That is the most recently appointed board of members
from the President.
So we are still very far short of what they believe is necessary to
run the national rail passenger system. So I am, with some trepidation,
supporting the amendment that has been put forward. I certainly intend
to vote for the amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, again I would like to inquire about
the time remaining for our side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Minnesota has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, by the way, let me thank Mr.
LaTourette for suggesting the 20-minute situation divided by two. I
appreciate that very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, giving Amtrak more money would
be like giving at this point an alcoholic another drink and asking him
to sober up.
I sort of feel like I am repeating, Mr. Chairman, the Ground Hog Day.
We have been through this debate over and over, and we keep putting
more and more taxpayer dollars into Amtrak. And I have no problem with
subsidizing mass transit or any type of long distance service or high
speed service. We will need to subsidize it. But, folks, Amtrak has
been and remains out of control. I served on the Rail Subcommittee for
most of my time in Congress. Let us just review, if we give them a
little bit more money, where that is going to go.
Right now we subsidize every ticket for $47. That is absolutely
outrageous, ladies and gentlemen. In fact, some tickets are
subsidized--I have the report right here, the latest information--$627.
Could you imagine that type of subsidy? They will tell you, oh, we give
it to airlines. That is not true. No one is subsidized like Amtrak is.
Food service. For every dollar that we take in in food service on
Amtrak, it costs the taxpayers $2. That is it, just give them a little
bit more money and things work out. Legal services. They spend more
money on legal services than they do on equipment.
The debt has risen to some $6 or $7 billion. The maintenance backlog
is between $5 and $6 billion. So even if you add additional money,
whoever is in this well 1 year from now will be back here trying to
feed the Amtrak monster.
We must have the reforms. Some of them are in the bill. The committee
has done a great job in trying to get their attention, to try to get
their finances in order. Their finances and accounting is worse than
Enron's.
{time} 1715
It is time that we demand accountability, that we demand a better
operating mass transit and public long distance service; and I have no
problem with underwriting that. But we should look at what the private
sector can do. They have 26 million, I believe, passengers.
In England, they have a new route, north-south. They have 34 million.
They actually have made a profit and turned a dividend and returned it
back to the taxpayers.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I find no small irony to what we just heard. This
bill contains billions of dollars of subsides to the airline industry
on top of hundreds of billions of dollars that was spent in the past
for an industry that has produced a net profit of zero in its 75-year
history.
Why does Amtrak have problems? We have consistently underinvested in
their capital needs. Any objective analysis suggests that they need to
be adequately funded for capital, but this Congress consistently
underfunds it. We cut it by another $200 million, and we will not even
pass the authorizing legislation.
We are not going to kill Amtrak, because the public won't allow
Amtrak to be killed; but it is time for us to stop this charade, give a
modest amount of money to meet its capital needs, be able to reverse
the outrageous act where they fired David Gunn, an operational genius
who was dealing with the management problems of Amtrak, and they fired
him. It is time to stop the criminal mismanagement of Amtrak by the
political process.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, regardless of your opinion about Amtrak,
if you are concerned about border security and want to do a better job
of protecting our border, you need to vote against this amendment.
Because according to the CBO's scoring, this $560 million cut from the
Federal Building Fund would come primarily out of the repairs,
alterations, and construction account.
The President has asked for six new border stations on the border
between Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona. These cuts would
leave the building fund without the money they need to build secure,
critical border crossings with Mexico.
This is not just about Amtrak. This is taking critically needed money
to build these border crossings and maintain not just Federal
structures across the country but, more importantly, the secure,
critical border crossings with Mexico.
I urge Members to vote against this amendment. Whether you oppose
Amtrak, you should vote against the amendment, as I would, because I am
concerned about Amtrak's accounting, but because I am concerned about
border security as the highest priority of this Congress, you need to
vote ``no'' on this amendment so we can build these secure, critical
border crossings.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, may I have a parliamentary
inquiry to have unanimous consent to interject a letter into the
Record? Do I do that during this debate?
The CHAIRMAN. That will have to be done in the full House as opposed
to in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. LaTourette's
amendment. One of the things you heard talked about was the fact that
Amtrak was making changes. That is absolutely incorrect.
I have an article I am going to interject into the Record:
``Passenger Railroad Improves Service on Long-Haul Trains to Lure
Travelers.'' The Empire Builder, which is in Montana, is the rolling
laboratory for some of these changes.
I represent a district that spans the distance of Washington, D.C. to
Chicago. Think about it: Washington, D.C. to Chicago. In many areas,
this is the only form of transportation we have.
[[Page H3831]]
Many of you have airlines. We do not in northern Montana. Many of you
have bus service. We do not in northern Montana. We use this service
for essential service to get our people to hospitals, to doctors, to
school, to visit relatives.
This is not just something we are wasting money on. This is an
essential service, an essential product for the people of America. If
you are going to build a more secure future for the people of Montana,
then you have to be realistic.
You don't gut and undermine the effort that they are attempting to
make at this time to improve the service of the Empire Builder in
Amtrak. I ask you, please support Mr. LaTourette.
[From Business Focus, Mar. 17, 2006]
Passenger Railroad Improves Service on Long-Haul Trains To Lure
Travelers
(By Daniel Machalaba)
Shelby, Montana.--Karyn Hamilton, like many Amtrak riders,
had a dim view of the nation's passenger railroad as low-
class, uncomfortable and not much better than a bus. But the
marketing director of a financial-management firm in
Portland, Ore., changed her mind during a trip last August on
the Empire Builder, an Amtrak long-distance train undergoing
a dramatic makeover that includes new carpeting and colors,
pleasant staff, and upgraded food service.
After years of financial and political crisis, Amtrak is
making a calculated gamble: To boost revenue on its longer-
haul trains, the railroad is altering its longstanding one-
size-fits-all approach to passengers.
The changes began with a major makeover of the Empire
Builder last summer. Now, Amtrak plans to extend the changes
to some other long-haul trains, while also attacking bloated
food-service expenses. Amtrak's board also is considering
cuts to its headquarters overhead by streamlining repair
shops, maintenance operations, reservation call centers and
train stations.
The shakeup is an acknowledgment by Amtrak officials that
they are running out of chances to stave off pressure from
the Bush administration to break up or even liquidate the
federally subsidized--and unprofitable--railroad. ``We're
living on borrowed time,'' says David Laney, Amtrak's
chairman. ``We have to demonstrate what we can do on our own
before it is taken out of our hands.''
Last year the Bush administration proposed eliminating
subsidies to Amtrak, which has been kept afloat with $30
billion in federal aid since 1971, according to the
Department of Transportation. While Congress approved $1.3
billion in funding for the current fiscal year, the Bush
administration latest budget request includes $900 million--a
31 percent cut-- for fiscal 2007. And the DOT would hold back
nearly half of the money until Amtrak demonstrated continued
progress on reform. Yesterday, Amtrak said it would ask
Congress for $1.598 billion for fiscal 2007, almost all the
increase for capital spending.
As part of the do-or-die overhaul, Mr. Laney fired Amtrak
President David Gunn last November. Mr. Gunn had been widely
praised for stabilizing Amtrak's finances,
Jump starting repairs to the Northeast Corridor and
restoring credibility with Congress. But Mr. Laney, a Dallas
lawyer and Republican loyalist appointed to the Amtrak board
in 2002, concluded that Mr. Gunn was standing in the way of
more-drastic reforms. Mr. Gunn says he was fired because he
opposed the Bush Administration's Amtrak strategy.
Mr. Laney ways the next crucial step for Amtrak is to fix
some notorious customer-service problems, ranging from dirty
cars to unhelpful and rude onboard employees. About 30
percent of all Amtrak trains are late. Rep. John Mica, a
Republican from Florida and longtime Amtrak critic, complains
Amtrak can ``rival some of the Third World and former Soviet
Union rail experiences.'' Mr. Laney acknowledges that
passenger service by Amtrak is ``in some cases superb and in
some cases miserable.''
The restructuring likely puts Amtrak on a collision course
with its 17,000 unionized workers, two-thirds of whom haven't
had a new contract for about five years. Amtrak officials
estimate union restrictions cost the railroad about $100
million a year. Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO
union's Transportation Trades Department, said in a statement
that the Bush administration's reform effort is an attempt to
``scapegoat workers for the failures of the federal
government and the current Amtrak board.''
Some of Amtrak's worst problems are beyond its control.
Formed to relieve freight railroads of money-losing passenger
trains, Amtrak shares nearly 22,000 miles of track with the
freight trains, and congestion is worsening. Still, Amtrak
believes better service will lure riders and shrink losses on
long-distance lines. On long-distance routes that are
primarily used by passengers for basic transportation,
starting with the Texas Eagle and the City of New Orleans,
the railroad is rolling out a new type of dining service that
makes greater use of precooked meals and introduces
disposable plastic plates. Those changes are designed to cut
the number of dining-car employees to three per train from
five or six.
Meanwhile, Amtrak is replacing mandatory meal-serving
periods with more flexible hours. Over the next few years, it
plans to rebuild dining cars to replace traditional table
seating and allow passengers to sit at the bar or watch
passing scenery from crescent-shaped booths that face the
windows. Meal service will then be available as much as 18
hours a day, up from about eight hours now, allowing Amtrak
to serve more people and boost revenue. Amtrak hopes to cut
$32 million from its annual food-service loss of $123
million.
The Empire Builder is the rolling laboratory for some of
the changes. Its on-time record is about 68 percent, and it
posted an average loss or $78.57 per passenger in the fiscal
year ended Sept. 30.
While the Empire Building is so far sticking with the
traditional dining-car format, staffing level and made-to-
order food, its added amenities and upgraded service are
noticeable. Amtrak put a small fleet of rebuilt passenger
cars with hip blue-and-white interiors on the line--a big
improvement over the drab orange and brown that dominated
older cars. Employees now must introduce themselves to
passengers. Conductors must stay up all night in the dining
car in case they are needed.
So far, the Empire Builder makeover appears to be enticing
more passengers, particularly during the off-season when
ridership typically declines. But David Hughes, Amtrak's
acting president, says it is impossible to ever make long-
distance trains like the Empire Builder profitable. Those
trains are expected to generate $382 million in fiscal 2006,
or about one-fourth of overall Amtrak revenue, but post
losses of more than $493 million, or about $125 for every
passenger.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in opposition to the amendment, not to speak against Amtrak, but
really where these funds would come from.
As the previous speaker under Mr. Knollenberg's time, Mr. Culberson
said it comes out of our border security infrastructure. Much of that
is right in the heart of Arizona. The Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry
and the San Luis Port of Entry are located on the Arizona-Mexico
border, not in my district, but in the area and will enhance security
while promoting economic development and improving the quality of life
in the border region.
The first project is the reconfiguration of the Nogales/Mariposa Port
of Entry. It is the principal commercial crossing on the southern
border during much of the year. It processes half of all the winter
fruits and vegetables entering the United States. It was built in the
1970s, and it was never built to handle the volume of traffic it now
receives.
During the peak season, it is absolutely overwhelmed. Trucks line up
for hours and miles and miles and miles into Mexico waiting to cross.
In addition the post-9/11 requirements of the Bioterrorism Act and
other security measures have added to the congestion of the port. This
is a project that would be cut under this amendment.
The second project is the construction of the new port of entry at
San Luis, and that is the highest priority on the southern border and
President's requested $42 million.
I urge that we defeat this amendment because of where the funds are
being taken from.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because the
funding it would remove from the bill would be terribly detrimental to
our border security infrastructure, at precisely the time when we are
finally turning our attention towards fixing our border and stopping
illegal immigration.
The Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry and San Luis Port of Entry are
located on the Arizona-Mexico border and will enhance security while
promoting economic development and improving the quality of life in the
border region and across the country.
The first project is the reconfiguration of the Nogales/Mariposa Port
of Entry to expand the port and enhance border security. Mariposa is
one of the principal commercial crossings on the southern border; it
processes half of the winter fruits and vegetables entering the United
States. Built in the 1970's, Mariposa was never intended to handle the
volume of traffic it now receives. During the peak season, it is
overwhelmed, as trucks line up for miles and wait many hours to cross.
In addition, the new post 9/11 requirements under the Bioterrorism Act
and other security measures have added to the congestion at the port.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection therefore placed this project high
on its list of priorities and the President requested $9 million for
design funds in his budget. That funding is in this bill and would be
cut by this amendment.
The second project is the construction of a new Port of Entry at San
Luis. U.S. Customs
[[Page H3832]]
and Border Protection has also listed this project as its highest
priority on the southern border and the President requested $42 million
for design funds in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget.
Clearly, these vital projects must not be cut precisely when we are
trying to fix our broken borders. In light of our heightened security
needs, particularly at our southern border, I urge a ``no'' vote on
this amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
First of all, the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arizona
are dead wrong. Our offset does not touch the border stations. In fact,
the Nogales is registered in the bill at $9.8 million; San Luis has $42
million. We do not touch any of the border stations.
In fact, the offsets are minor repair and alteration, $375 million.
Minor construction, $10 million. Building operations, that is cleaning,
$119 million; and the DC Old Executive Office Building at $56 million
to cover the offsets for Amtrak. None of this is border stations, none
of it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Once again, we are up here fighting for
the life of Amtrak, 35 years of service to the public. It just amazes
me that constantly people, the Chair of aviation, billions of dollars
that we have put in aviation, billions of dollars, and yet it doesn't
pay for itself, and we do not want zero funding for Amtrak.
This administration constantly, constantly cut down the funds for
Amtrak. This administration has come up with a lot of wacky ideas, but
let me tell you something. When gasoline will go up to $4 a gallon, you
are going to see a lot of people lining up to take Amtrak.
With the passage of the latest emergency funding, President Bush will
have spent over $439 billion on the war in Iraq, but we don't want to
spend money for Amtrak. During Hurricane Katrina, the way the victims
and first responders were able to leave the gulf region and the New
Orleans area was through Amtrak, Amtrak.
Mr. Chairman, this year, Amtrak is celebrating 35 years of public
service to this nation through it's commitment to passenger rail.
I travel all over the country and the people I talk to love Amtrak.
It is a great way to commute to work, it takes cars off our already
congested highways, and in many areas of the country is the only mode
of transportation available. In fact, ridership has increased in 8 of
the last 9 years reaching a record level of over 25 million passengers
last year. It is also important to note that Amtrak's long distance
trains are the only inner city passenger trains in half the states in
America.
Amtrak was also a First Responder during hurricane Katrina, and
helped evacuate thousands of Gulf region residents while President Bush
and his Administration were nowhere to be found. Now they are becoming
a key part in each states future evacuation plans.
Now what I can't understand is why the Bush Administration is trying
to destroy passenger rail in this country. Every Industrialized country
in the world is investing heavily in rail infrastructure because they
realize that this is the future of transportation. But sadly, as there
systems get bigger and better, our system gets less and less money.
President Bush has a lot of wacky ideas for dealing with the high gas
prices he created, but I can assure him that as prices climb to $4 per
gallon, you are going to see American's lining up to use a passenger
rail system that has been neglected by this very Administration. But
what more do you expect when you put J.R. Ewing in the White House.
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.
With the passage of the latest emergency funding for the war,
President Bush will have spent over $439 Billion on the war in Iraq,
but
* * * * *
million, major infrastructure projects have been completed. All with a
workforce that has been reduced by over 4,000 employees.
We still have a lot of work ahead of us when it comes to Amtrak. But
we're starting $900 million dollars closer to our goal, and I know with
the help of the American public, we can fully fund Amtrak at $1.6
Billion and keep Amtrak running long into the future.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sweeney), who offered a similar amendment during the full
committee markup to try to save Amtrak.
(Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, in the brief time I have, I want to just say that I
want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Rehberg, that Amtrak is an
essential service in my part of the country. But we have had this
debate every year, and we go through this process in each of those
years.
Last year, in particular, we had a very strong and vigorous debate in
which we were threatened with a veto at one point and demanded reforms.
This $900 million allocation is a shutdown number for Amtrak, and it
would come at the worst possible time to shut down Amtrak.
This is because it is part of those reforms. Amtrak was required to
institute new acting procedures. It was required to institute new
service contracts and plans. It was required to put in place a new
business plan. The Department of Transportation Inspector General just
issued a report from September 2005 to March 2006.
Amtrak has saved in excess of $19 million with the institution of
these new reform plans that we demanded of them. To now shut them down
would go back on our word. Let me also say that Amtrak promotes fuel
conservation. At this time, when we are all sensitive about that, it is
something that we ought to consider.
A recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows Amtrak
consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger than automobiles and 18
percent less than planes. Amtrak is an essential service. Support this
amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Inspector General at the DOT has said to maintain the currently
configured system in a steady state of repair, Amtrak would need $1.4
billion. They can't function at a lesser number. But despite chronic
underfunding, Amtrak has made significant performance improvements,
reducing costs, increasing revenues, implementing reasonable
operational reforms, building key infrastructure over its 730 route
miles. Even with a starvation budget, this service has performed
remarkably.
Support the amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. 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 chairman for his willingness to work with
Members on this extremely important issue.
While I strongly agree that reforming our rail system is essential,
and I am supportive of efforts to ensure the Inspector General plays a
key role in the rail system's oversight, the level of funding included
in this bill is simply unrealistic.
Unlike aviation and highways, 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.
Rather than constantly looking for ways to shortchange passenger
rail, we should be working on a comprehensive strategy to make Amtrak
the best high-speed rail system in the world.
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 everyday, 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 could lead to greatly expanded
possibilities.
In addition, it is my firm belief that improving passenger rail
service in this country depends on strong and experienced leadership at
Amtrak. Unfortunately, over the past year, the Amtrak Board has made
several important decisions, despite the fact that close to half of its
seats remain empty.
Frankly, I believe the failure to appoint a fully functioning Amtrak
Board is disgraceful,
[[Page H3833]]
and it stands as an enormous disadvantage for this rail system. Members
of Congress can stress the need for accountability and reform until we
turn blue in the face--but in the end, what Amtrak really needs is
leaders with vision, who attend and participate in board meetings and
who are genuinely committed to improving passenger rail.
Everything starts with the leadership provided by this board, and as
we work to ensure adequate funding for passenger rail, it is crucial
that Congress continue to advocate for a fully functioning Amtrak Board
of Directors.
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, including thousands in my state, depend
on Amtrak for both business and pleasure. Instead of shortchanging the
organization, we should work together to improve passenger rail.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered
by Representative LaTourette to fully fund Amtrak.
In fiscal year 2006, the Bush administration attempted to only
provide $360 million to maintain commuter and freight service operated
by Amtrak. With a great deal of support from many parts of America,
Amtrak funding was restored to $1.3 billion.
Once again we are considering a bill that underfunds Amtrak needs to
maintain its current operations. Amtrak is funded at a mere 900 million
to continue its operations and make capital improvements. This is 33
percent less than current funding levels for Amtrak. This is $698
million less than Amtrak requested to continue operations and invest in
capital. The Oberstar/LaTourette amendment increases funding for Amtrak
to $1.114 billion.
The Northeast Corridor relies heavily on Amtrak's infrastructure and
skilled workers. New Jersey Transit estimates that over 77 percent of
its daily passengers would be affected if--New Jersey Transit could no
longer operate its trains over tracks owned by Amtrak.
Many of my colleagues contend that the Northeast Corridor is the only
area that depends on Amtrak. This is simply not true. According to a
report recently published by the Government Accountability Office,
across the country 18 different commuter agencies depend on the
infrastructure and services that Amtrak provides, including commuter
rail agencies in Dallas and Seattle. There are currently seven new
agencies being planned across the country as well. If we do not
continue to fund Amtrak at the levels they need to function, a shutdown
is imminent. This would be detrimental to commuter rail agencies that
depend on Amtrak-owned tracks and infrastructure and skilled Amtrak
employees.
The GAO confirms the effect a shutdown of Amtrak would cause: ``Given
the dependence of more commuter rail agencies on Amtrak for services
and infrastructure, an abrupt Amtrak cessation would likely result in
major disruption or shutdowns of commuter rail service throughout the
country.''
We have a responsibility to promote mass transit and provide adequate
funding for States and local transit authorities to move passengers
effectively. Rail transportation is essential for easing traffic
congestion in our most densely populated areas, reducing wear and tear
on roads, protecting our environment, and preserving open space across
the country.
On May 1, Amtrak celebrated 35 years of service to our Nation. We
celebrated Amtrak for its ability to integrate small communities with
large cities by providing economic expansion, increased mobility, and
environmentally sound transit.
That is why I support the amendment offered by Representative
LaTourette that would increase Amtrak funding. Now is not the time for
us to cut funding for mass transportation. I urge my colleagues to
support Amtrak and vote for the Oberstar/LaTourette amendment.
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as cochair of the
Passenger Rail Caucus, I urge you to support th LaTourette-Oberstar
amendment to the FY07 Transportation, Treasury and HUD Appropriations
bill. The amendment will increase funding for Amtrak to a total of
$1.114 billion, an increase of $214 million.
The FY 2007 TTHUD appropriations bill provides only $900 million for
Amtrak, $412 million less than the FY 2006 enacted level and $698
million less than Amtrak requested in order to continue operation and
invest in capital. I am concerned that the current funding level in the
bill would leave the rail system incapable of providing sufficient
service to Amtrak's 25 million customers--many of whom are my
constituents of the 8th Congressional District of Pennsylvania on the
Northeast Corridor.
The Department of Transportation's Inspector General has stated that
the status quo funding option for Amtrak is unsustainable. The
Inspector General also stated that postponement of maintenance--
especially on heavily traveled Northeast Corridor increases the risk of
accident.
Today, as Americans are facing skyrocketing energy prices and
increasingly overcrowded roads, it is crucial that we invest in our
national passenger rail system.
I urge you to join us in preserving transportation options for our
constituents and support the LaTourette-Oberstar amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. 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 Ohio will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 2, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $70,000)''.
Page 37, line 4, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $70,000)''.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today out of deep concern for the
safety of children who ride school buses over railroad tracks in Ohio
and across the country. My amendment will ensure that there is a person
working full time in the Federal Railroad Administration who can help
us resolve the inadequate reporting.
That reporting is necessary to ensure that railroad crossings
frequently used by school buses are in compliance with Federal safety
requirements. Title 23, section 646.214 of the Code of Federal
regulations requires that crossings be equipped with ``automatic gates
with flashing light signals'' when a ``substantial number of school
buses cross.''
Setting aside the issue that any school bus with children in it is
substantial, when it comes to children's safety, it is impossible for
school districts, public utility commissions, and the Department of
Transportation to know whether any school buses are crossing gated or
ungated tracks if this information is not reported.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I certainly would.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to accept the amendment. Your
amendment, I think, is a good one.
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the chairman for his assistance, and I
know that the parents of school children all over this country will be
grateful to you for your concern. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1730
Amendment Offered by Ms. Bean
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Bean:
Page 2, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following ``(reduced by $2,700,000)''.
Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,700,000)''.
Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
Page 32, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $6,700,000)''.
Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $6,700,000)''.
Ms. BEAN (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 Illinois?
There was no objection.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would
increase funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Operations and Research account by $6.7 million. The
amendment offsets this increase by decreasing $2.7 million in funding
from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and $4
million from transportation planning and research account.
The intent of my amendment is to direct the Office of Fuel Economy to
use these funds to assess how to best incentivize the auto industry to
increase corporate average fuel economy,
[[Page H3834]]
CAFE, standards by the year 2015. It is my hope that this will
accelerate adoption of increased fuel efficiency standards by having
the office considering options like tax credits to retooling their
manufacturing processes for production of more fuel efficient vehicles.
This would provide manufacturers with an economically viable way to
increase fuel economy for passenger cars and light trucks.
Particularly in suburban districts like mine, families are plagued by
heavy traffic and congestion and are burdened by the price of gasoline.
The high gas prices we are facing today can only be addressed by a
serious, long-term effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
By voting for my amendment, we can give the Office of Fuel Economy
the resources necessary to start providing solutions on the demand side
of the energy equation.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. We all want
better fuel economy. However, I must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment
for a number of reasons.
There are times when throwing additional money at a problem is not
going to solve it, and this is one of those times. All that is needed
here is time.
Giving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration more money
will not speed up the process whereby fuel economy standards would be
raised. Even if Congress passed a bill tomorrow ordering NHTSA to raise
fuel economy standards, it would take a minimum of 9 months for a rule
to be proposed and finalized. This is because NHTSA would need the
detailed product plans from every major auto manufacturer on every
model they make before they could draft such a rule, and assembling
these documents takes time.
Moreover, under law, there would have to be a reasonable comment
period of 90 days so the public could weigh in on any proposed rule.
Finally, any proposed rule would have to be cleared by the Office of
the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and
Budget, and that is just the beginning.
Auto makers also need time, which they are provided under the law, to
retool their product lines to comply with the new regulations. For
instance, the auto makers are already developing their product lines
for the 2010 model year.
As I said at the beginning, this just takes time, roughly 27 months
worth of time. NHTSA has already been tasked with studying the
feasibility and effects of reducing the use of fuel for automobiles.
This report, required by section 773 of the energy bill, is due to
Congress later this year.
I would also like to point out to Members that this committee has
already significantly increased funding for NHTSA's CAFE office over
the past several years. The office, which was funded at $60,000 in
fiscal year 2001, was funded at almost $1.3 million last year. Giving
NHTSA's CAFE office an extra $6.7 million would likely result in the
money simply being unspent.
I am unsure what benefit will be gained by the public if the CAFE
office were to be given $6.5 million that they realistically cannot
spend. Certainly, it would not result in fuel economy standards being
raised faster, which I assume is the gentlewoman's ultimate intent.
So I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this amendment. It seems to me
that if we are to move toward energy independence, and particularly, if
we are ever going to get away from our dependence on Middle Eastern
oil, with all the uncertainty and all of the problems that go along
with that, which we have seen much of, then our largest and fastest
gains that can possibly be made are in increasing the efficiency of the
use of our motor vehicles.
At least a third of all of the oil that we use in this country goes
into our transportation sector and to the use of our motor vehicles,
and we desperately need to increase the efficiency of those. That is
the fastest thing that we can put into place, much faster than the work
on a hydrogen economy or an ethanol economy or fuel cells or any one of
those. The efficiency of the present fleet and vehicles to be sold in
the near future becomes important.
So I think it is very important that when the Energy and Commerce
Committee bill, H.R. 5359, which provides the authority for the
Secretary of Transportation to set economy standards for passenger
cars, when that which is pending on the House calendar, it has been
reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee and it is pending on
the House calendar, that when that is passed that there be the
resources available at NHTSA to be able to evaluate the technologies
and capability of the automobile industry to improve fuel economy as
fast as it can reasonably be done.
When NHTSA was first created 30 years ago, and I guess it was when
they were first given the job at looking at CAFE standards, they were
given $10 million at the first instance 30 years ago to set fuel
economy standards, and now $10 million today would probably be
something like $40 million.
All the gentlewoman from Illinois is asking for here is an increase
from $1.3 million to which the NHTSA account for fuel economy has been
reduced to bring that up to $8 million, and the offsets in this
instance are $2.7 million, which still leaves the account for the
Office of the Secretary at 7 percent, almost $6 million above what it
was in fiscal year 2006, even after that $2.7 million is taken out. The
other part of the offset is $4 million taken from the transportation
planning research and development which with $9 million left in the
account still has more than the President requested in his budget
submission by almost $100,000.
So I think this is a worthwhile place to put some money and make
certain that NHTSA can deal with that as quickly as possible.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, the American people are looking to Congress
for leadership in addressing rising energy costs. In the last few
weeks, different proposals for increasing our energy supply have come
before us. However, few proposals have been offered to address the
demand side of the energy equation.
For too long, Congress has allowed a stalemate on innovation and fuel
efficiency. This amendment does not mandate increases but, instead,
funds research into options.
My amendment gives this Congress an opportunity to strike a balance
between keeping auto makers competitive, by addressing the economic
impact on them, with the pressing needs of American drivers, because
both manufacturers and consumers are looking for an economically viable
solution toward the advancement in the fuel efficiency of the cars and
trucks we drive.
Let us help the Office of Fuel Economy facilitate public/private
partnership solutions to meet the energy demand challenges our Nation
is facing.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. BEAN. 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 Illinois will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Israel
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Israel:
Page 2, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $4,724,000)''.
Page 49, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $9,448,000)''.
Page 63, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $4,724,000)''.
Mr. ISRAEL (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
New York?
There was no objection.
[[Page H3835]]
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment restores funding for certain
advanced energy research programs to last year's levels. That research
is absolutely critical to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
The funding in this bill for research and university resource centers
is $9,448,000 below last year's levels, and those are the very centers
that are researching and developing hydrogen and hybrid and other
advanced transportation technologies.
Now, we all understand how vital that research and development is.
The President of the United States on this floor during the State of
the Union proclaimed that we must reduce our addiction to foreign oil.
Anyone in their cars at a gas station today, as we are on the floor,
paying over $3 a gallon for gas understands how important it is that we
reduce that addiction to foreign oil.
I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Our military
understands how critical that is. Last year, the Department of Defense
spent $10 billion on basic energy costs. Of that, $4.7 billion was
spent to buy one thing, fuel for Air Force planes.
I was in Iraq last month and was on a wonderful Stryker combat
vehicle. It gets about 10 miles to the gallon.
It is dangerous, Mr. Chairman, when we have to borrow money from
China to fund defense budgets to buy oil from unstable Persian Gulf
countries to fuel our military to protect us from China and unstable
Persian Gulf countries.
We have all talked about having men on the Moon, research and
development programs to end that dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
We have talked about having new Apollo programs to research and develop
new vehicles, not lunar landing modules that will put people on the
Moon, but hydrogen and hybrid vehicles that will make it easier and
safer and less expensive for people to drive on our roads here on
Earth. And yet, this bill cuts $9.5 million from the very research
centers that are engaged in deploying those vehicles.
This is not a giant leap for mankind. This is not even one small step
for mankind. It is a step backwards, and so my amendment does not go
above last year's level. It does not take a giant leap that I think we
need. All it does is it keeps us steady so we do not continue to lose
ground to the very adversaries we have around the world who are willing
to use oil as a weapon against us and use oil to blackmail us and
compromise our capabilities.
This amendment simply offsets salaries in the Treasury and
Transportation accounts and restores $9,448,000 for basic research at
the research and university research centers to continue our vital
work, and I hope that the House will agree to it and support it.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The account he seeks to increase is transit research, not fuel
research, and I appreciate his sentiment, but we already gave more than
the guarantees, and the guarantees are killing other programs, both
transportation and everything else. Repeatedly I see already that the
Treasury continues to get hit over and over.
We provide a greater level of funding in 2007 to address two
problems. We needed to fix a problem with SAFETEA-LU since the
authorizing committee identified more projects and activities than were
provided for under the guarantees. We covered that problem and found
the money for the fix in order to keep the program going. We added
these funds to cover some initiatives important to other Members.
The gentleman proposes to add money for alternative fuels research.
However, most of that research is funded out of DOE and NHTSA. This
account is for research into transit, as I repeated, and I urge a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
This amendment that is offered by my good friend from New York, this
amendment does exactly what I had spoken about in my opening remarks in
relation to this bill and which the chairman of the subcommittee has
pointed out as well, that this amendment starts by adding money,
assuring money to already what is one of the guaranteed items under the
TEA-LU guarantees, which those guarantees had to be provided in order
to bring the bill to the floor at all.
This is not a rearrangement of moneys as the previous case was where
I had supported the Amtrak amendment because, in that instance, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was moving money around
totally within its jurisdiction, and I thought that was something that
was worth supporting.
{time} 1745
In this instance, what we are doing is taking money from one of the
places in the bill which has no guarantees for minima along the way,
namely the Treasury, a totally different unit of the bill, a totally
different title of the bill, and simply grabs those and moves them over
to an area which is already under the guarantees of the TEA-LU bill.
Under those circumstances, I must, regretfully for the gentleman from
New York, oppose the amendment; and I hope that it will not be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$8,821,000.
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, $13,000,000.
working capital fund
Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays
of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed $120,000,000,
shall be paid from appropriations made available to the
Department of Transportation: Provided, That such services
shall be provided on a competitive basis to entities within
the Department of Transportation: Provided further, That the
above limitation on operating expenses shall not apply to
non-DOT entities: Provided further, That no funds
appropriated in this Act to an agency of the Department shall
be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the
approval of the agency modal administrator: Provided further,
That no assessments may be levied against any program, budget
activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless
notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are
presented to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.
minority business resource center program
For the cost of guaranteed loans for short-term working
capital, $495,000, 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, $396,000.
minority business outreach
For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center
outreach activities, $2,970,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008: 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)
(including transfer of funds)
In addition to funds made available from any other source
to carry out the essential air service program under 49
U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, $67,000,000, to be derived from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to remain available until
expended: Provided, 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: Provided further, That, if the funds under this
heading are insufficient to meet the costs of the essential
air service program in the current fiscal year, the Secretary
shall transfer such sums as may be necessary to carry out the
essential air service program from any available amounts
appropriated to or directly administered by the Office of the
Secretary for such fiscal year: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under this heading, $1,000,000 shall be
used to carry out the three marketing incentive programs
authorized by section 41748 of title 49, United States Code.
[[Page H3836]]
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
paragraph beginning at the words ``to be derived from the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund,'' beginning on page 5, line 23, and ending on line
24.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, 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.
The Chair finds that in this latter respect the provision is not
supported by an authorization in law. This is consistent with the
ruling of the Chair of June 29, 2005. The point of order is sustained
and the provision is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS
(RESCISSION)
Of the funds made available under section 101(a)(2) of
Public Law 107-42, $50,000,000 are rescinded.
administrative provisions--office of the secretary of transportation
Sec. 101. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration may reimburse amounts made available to
satisfy 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) from fees credited under 49
U.S.C. 45303: Provided, That during fiscal year 2007, 49
U.S.C. 41742(b) shall not apply, and any amount remaining in
such account at the close of that fiscal year may be made
available to satisfy section 41742(a)(1) for the subsequent
fiscal year.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 101.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 6, line
22, beginning with ``provided, that'' through line 26.
This proviso violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law,
which constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of
House rules.
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 proviso changes the application of existing
law. The proviso therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and the proviso
is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 102. 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. 103. 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. 104. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be obligated or expended to establish or implement a
program under which essential air service communities are
required to assume subsidy costs commonly referred to as the
EAS local participation program.
Federal Aviation Administration
operations
(including transfer of funds)
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, $8,360,000,000, of which
$4,843,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $6,698,728,000 shall be
available for air traffic organization activities; not to
exceed $997,718,000 shall be available for aviation
regulation and certification activities; not to exceed
$11,985,000 shall be available for commercial space
transportation activities; not to exceed $92,227,000 shall be
available for financial services activities; not to exceed
$87,850,000 shall be available for human resources program
activities; not to exceed $272,821,000 shall be available for
region and center operations and regional coordination
activities; not to exceed $175,392,000 shall be available for
staff offices; and not to exceed $36,799,000 shall be
available for information services: Provided, That not to
exceed 2 percent of any budget activity, except for aviation
regulation and certification budget activity, may be
transferred to any budget activity under this heading:
Provided further, That no transfer may increase or decrease
any appropriation by more than 2 percent: Provided further,
That any transfer in excess of 2 percent shall be treated as
a reprogramming of funds under section 810 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section:
Provided further, 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
$8,000,000 shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing
program: Provided further, That funds may be used to enter
into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting
organization to assist in the development of aviation safety
standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available for new applicants for the second
career training program: Provided further, That none of the
funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay
under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration
employee unless such employee actually performed work during
the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or
expended to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station
in the contiguous United States: Provided further, That none
of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and
cartography are available for activities conducted by, or
coordinated through, the Working Capital Fund: Provided
further, That 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.
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, $3,110,000,000, of which
$2,662,100,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2009, and of which $447,900,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2007: Provided, That there may be credited to
this appropriation funds received from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private
sources, for expenses incurred in the establishment and
modernization of air navigation facilities: Provided further,
That upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal
year 2008 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
2008 through 2012, 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,
$134,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2009:
Provided, That there may be credited to this
[[Page H3837]]
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 transfer of funds)
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,
$4,171,000,000 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 $3,700,000,000 in fiscal year 2007,
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, of funds limited
under this heading, up to $74,971,000 shall be obligated for
administration, up to $10,000,000 shall be available for the
airport cooperative research program, up to $12,000,000 shall
be available to carry out the Small Community Air Service
Development Program, and up to $17,870,000 shall be for
airport technology research, to remain available until
expended.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 13,
line 1, beginning with ``; for grants'' through page 13, line 6, ending
with the word ``Code.''
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes, again, legislating on an appropriations bill
in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the gentleman's
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to 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 raise a point of order against another
provision of the paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. I raise a point of order against page 13, line 17,
beginning with the words ``Provided further'' through line 25.
This provision also violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes
existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations
bill in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this proviso explicitly supercedes existing law.
The proviso, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the proviso is stricken from the
bill.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous
consent to have it considered out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment may be considered at
this time.
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 11, line 8, after each of the dollar amounts, insert
the following: ``(reduced by $261,000,000)''.
Page 85, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $261,000,000)''.
Ms. WATERS (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 California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that before this bill is enacted
into law we must reverse an unwise pattern of disinvestment in the
Nation's public housing. Therefore, I am introducing an amendment to
restore the $261 million reduction in the Public Housing Capital Fund.
America's public housing inventory is a $100 billion public asset
providing affordable housing to 1.1 million families. Just over half of
these families are headed by the elderly or persons with disabilities,
and children make up approximately 40 percent of all those we help.
Public housing helps families and the elderly in large and small
communities across the country in every congressional district.
In addition to safe, decent, affordable housing, public housing
agencies connect people to the services they need, services that help
adults become economically self-sufficient, provide children safe
places to grow and learn, and allow the elderly and persons with
disabilities to live independently.
Public housing funding has been declining since 2001. Despite the
estimated $100 billion value of public housing assets to our
communities, this bill does not provide funding necessary to maintain
them for the long run. Total Federal funding for public housing has
dropped precipitously over this decade. The bill before us provides
$1.4 billion less than provided for funding year 2001, that is, the
President's budget for funding year 2007 requests nearly $1.5 billion
less for public housing than Congress provided for funding year 2001.
This drop in resources has constrained local agencies' ability to
address safety and security needs, provide valuable services to those
seeking economic self-sufficiency and independent living, and
undermines agencies' ability to meet the recent surge in utility costs.
This decline in funding is most egregious in the area of capital repair
funding.
Public housing faces an estimated $18 billion backlog of capital
repairs. According to a HUD-funded study, an additional $2 billion in
capital repair needs accrues each year as buildings age. The
President's budget and this bill cuts funding for the public housing
capital funds for major repairs by $261 million, that is 11 percent
compared with last year's funding. In fact, the capital fund has been
cut each year since 2001, declining a total of 27 percent over 6 years
if this budget is enacted.
The capital funds provided in this bill are barely sufficient to
cover annually accruing needs, let alone address the backlog of need.
The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials
estimates that $3.5 billion is necessary to begin to address the
backlog of need in funding year 2007.
At the same time we are cutting basic capital repair funds, this bill
also zeros out funding for the HOPE VI program for comprehensive
revitalization of the most distressed public housing communities as
requested by the administration. My colleague, John Olver, categorized
this approach of cutting annual capital repair funding as, and I quote,
``penny-wise and pound foolish,'' and that is exactly what this is.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to embrace the intent of my
capital fund amendment in order to secure the ongoing viability of this
valuable affordable housing asset. Unless greater measures are taken by
HUD to preserve this affordable asset called public housing, this
unique asset and the larger continuum of a sound Federal affordable
housing policy will be degraded and eventually lost. And that is a plan
that our communities, our seniors, and our families with children
cannot afford.
[[Page H3838]]
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that these are our most
vulnerable citizens, and they need a safety net. While we want them to
improve their lives, we want them to become independent. We are trying
to have programs that will transition them to work and out of public
housing. It is not going to happen unless we have reasonable and
sensible investment to make these safe, sound, and secure places for
our citizens to live.
Again, we need this in all of our congressional districts. As a
matter of fact, the poor have nowhere else to turn. They are depending
on us. I would ask us not to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, but
rather to make what I think is one of the most prudent investments we
can make.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California has
expired.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30
additional seconds to close this out.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has asked unanimous consent to proceed
for 30 additional seconds.
Is there objection to the gentlewoman's unanimous consent request? If
not, the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I moved to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman for an additional
30 seconds.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that has been
allotted and I move to withdraw the amendment. I have not been able to
find the funds to replace that which has been cut. I appreciate the
time to at least explain it.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
{time} 1800
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
If I had been allowed to move to strike the last word, I would have
been happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman after I made a
comment which relates to the amendment she offered.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman asked unanimous consent to proceed for
an additional 30 seconds, and the Chair responded to her unanimous
consent request and granted her the 30 seconds that she requested.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this is one of
those cutting-the-baby-in-two kinds of situations that has been forced
upon the TTHUD committee by the allocation and the relationship, the
juxtaposition of guarantees under the transportation accounts and no
such guarantees under some of the others.
The $261 million that the gentlewoman asked to be provided by an
offset which would have placed the bill under point of order and is
under point of order if she had not withdrawn the amendment. That $261
million would have protected a very important infrastructure investment
that we have.
We have $100 billion worth of housing under the public housing
capital fund, and it is that capital fund which does the renovations,
the rehabilitations, the replacements of those facilities, and it is a
very important piece which I have spoken about at each stage of this
process, every one of the stages, even before, Mr. Chairman, your
committee just last night about the need for additional funding in the
public housing capital fund.
I am very much hopeful that we will be able to find before this
process runs its course to the final conference report, that we will be
able to find some additional money for the public housing capital fund
so we can, in fact, do something about the huge backlog which has been
listed by the gentlewoman as close to $20 billion of backlog in needs
for capital repair and improvements in our $100 billion of housing
stock.
So that is one of the dilemmas that the subcommittee, the chairman
and the staff and the committee as a whole has been laboring under, and
I hope to find a way to provide some relief for the problem.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
grants-in-aid for airports
(airport and airway trust fund)
(rescission of contract authorization)
Of the amounts authorized for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007 and prior years under sections 48103 and
48112 of title 49, United States Code, $25,000,000 are
rescinded.
Administrative Provisions--Federal Aviation Administration
Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
airports may transfer without consideration to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems
(along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway
visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and
performance specifications, the purchase of which was
assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport
development aid program or airport improvement program grant:
Provided, That the Federal Aviation Administration shall
accept such equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and
maintained by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
Sec. 111. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
compensate in excess of 380 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
2006.
Sec. 112. 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. 113. Amounts collected under section 40113(e) of title
49, United States Code, shall be credited to the
appropriation current at the time of collection, to be merged
with and available for the same purposes of such
appropriation.
Sec. 114. 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. 115. (a) Section 44302(f)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``2006,'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2007,''.
(b) Section 44303(b) of such title is amended by striking
``2006,'' and inserting ``2007,''.
Sec. 116. 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 $372,504,000
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)
(including transfer of funds)
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 $39,086,464,683 for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal
year 2007: Provided, That within this obligation limitation
on Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction
programs, not more than $429,800,000 shall be available for
the implementation or execution of programs for
transportation research (chapter 5 of title 23, United States
Code; sections 111, 5505, and 5506 of title 49, United States
Code; and title 5 of Public Law 109-59) for fiscal year 2007:
Provided further, That this limitation on transportation
research programs shall not apply to any authority previously
made available for obligation: Provided further, That the
funds authorized pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 110 for the motor
carrier safety grant program, and the obligation limitation
associated with such funds provided under this heading, shall
be transferred to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration: Provided further, That the Secretary may, as
authorized by section 605(b) of title 23, United States Code,
collect and spend fees to cover the costs of services of
expert firms, including counsel, in the field of municipal
and project finance to assist in the underwriting and
servicing of Federal credit instruments and all or a portion
of the costs to the Federal government of servicing such
credit instruments: 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 section 608 of title 23, United
States Code.
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States
Code, that are attributable to
[[Page H3839]]
Federal-aid highways, not otherwise provided, including
reimbursement for sums expended pursuant to the provisions of
23 U.S.C. 308, $39,086,464,683 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.
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned to each
State under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
$2,000,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That such rescission
shall not apply to the funds distributed in accordance with
23 U.S.C. 130(f), 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(1) as in effect prior to
the date of enactment of Public Law 109-59, the first
sentence of 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(A), 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(5), or
23 U.S.C. 163 as in effect prior to the enactment of Public
Law 109-59.
Administrative Provisions--Federal Highway Administration
(including rescissions)
Sec. 120. (a) For fiscal year 2007, the Secretary of
Transportation shall--
(1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid highways amounts authorized for administrative
expenses and programs by section 104(a) of title 23, United
States Code; the highway use tax evasion program; and 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 previous 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 provisions
of law described in paragraphs (1) through (9) 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)(10) for such fiscal year), less the
aggregate of the amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1)
and (2) of this subsection;
(4)(A) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
highways, less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2), for sections 1301, 1302, and 1934 of
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users; sections 117 (but
individually for each project numbered 1 through 3676 listed
in the table contained in section 1702 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users) and 144(g) of title 23, United States Code;
and section 14501 of title 40, United States Code, 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 that section for the fiscal year; and
(B) distribute $2,000,000,000 for section 105 of title 23,
United States Code;
(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 the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users and title 23, United States Code (other than
to programs to which paragraphs (1) and (4) apply), by
multiplying the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the
amounts authorized to be appropriated for each 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 amounts apportioned for the equity bonus program, but
only to the extent that the amounts apportioned for the
equity bonus program for the fiscal year are greater than
$2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian development highway
system program) that are apportioned by the Secretary under
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and title 23, United States
Code, in the ratio that--
(A) amounts authorized to be appropriated for such programs
that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear
to
(B) the total of the amounts 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 subsections (b) and (j) of
section 131 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of
1982; (5) under subsections (b) and (c) of section 149 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, as in effect for
fiscal years 1998 through 2004, but only in an amount equal
to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years; (9) for
Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation authority
was made available under the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century or subsequent public laws for multiple years
or to remain available until used, but only to the extent
that the obligation authority has not lapsed or been used;
(10) under section 105 of title 23, United States Code, but
only in an amount equal to $639,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2005, 2006 and 2007; and (11) under section 1603 of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, to the extent that funds obligated
in accordance with that section were not subject to a
limitation on obligations at the time at which the funds were
initially made available for obligation.
(c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall, after
August 1 of such fiscal year, revise a distribution of the
obligation limitation made available under subsection (a) if
the amount distributed cannot be obligated 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.
(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, and title V
(research title) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,
except that obligation authority made available for such
programs under such limitation shall remain available for a
period of 3 fiscal years 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.
(e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--
(1) In general.--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
that--
(A) are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year
for Federal-aid highways programs; and
(B) 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.
(2) Ratio.--Funds shall be distributed under paragraph (1)
in the same ratio as the distribution of obligation authority
under subsection (a)(6).
(3) Availability.--Funds distributed under paragraph (1)
shall be available for any purposes described in section
133(b) of title 23, United States Code.
(f) Special Limitation Characteristics.--Obligation
limitation distributed for a fiscal year under subsection
(a)(4) for the provision specified in subsection (a)(4)
shall--
(1) remain available until used for obligation of funds for
that provision; and
(2) 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.
(g) High Priority Project Flexibility.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), obligation
authority distributed for such fiscal year under subsection
(a)(4) for each project numbered 1 through 3676 listed in the
table contained in section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users may be obligated for any other project in such section
in the same State.
(2) Restoration.--Obligation authority used as described in
paragraph (1) shall be restored to the original purpose on
the date on which obligation authority is distributed under
this section for the next fiscal year following obligation
under paragraph (1).
(h) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the distribution of
obligation authority under subsection (a)(4)(A) for each of
the individual projects numbered greater than 3676 listed in
the table contained in section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 120.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, 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
gentleman's point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section imparts direction to the executive.
The
[[Page H3840]]
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. 121. 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. 122. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
authorized under section 110 of title 23, United States Code,
for fiscal year 2007 shall be apportioned to the States in
accordance with section 1105(f) of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144, 1166), except that
before allocations in accordance with section 1105(f)(3) of
such Act are made, $300,000,000 shall be set aside for the
Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program
under section 1117 of such Act (119 Stat. at 1177-1179) and
administered in accordance with section 1117(g)(2) of such
Act.
Sec. 123. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
provided in Public Law 102-143 in the item relating to
``Highway Bypass Demonstration Project'' shall be available
for the improvement of Route 101 in the vicinity of
Prunedale, Monterey County, California.
Sec. 124. Of the unobligated balances made available under
Public Law 101-516, Public Law 102-143, Public Law 102-240,
Public Law 103-331, Public Law 105-178, Public Law 106-346,
Public Law 107-87, and Public Law 108-7, $12,177,193.53 are
rescinded.
Sec. 125. Of the unobligated balances made available under
section 188(a)(1) of title 23, United States Code, as in
effect prior to the date of enactment of Public Law 109-59,
and under section 608(a)(1) of such title, $100,000,000 are
rescinded.
Sec. 126. Of the amounts made available under section
104(a) of title 23, United States Code, $14,460,721 is
rescinded.
Sec. 127. Of the unobligated balances made available for
fiscal year 2005, under title 5 of Public Law 109-59, for the
implementation or execution of programs for transportation
research, $37,815,112 is rescinded.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 127.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, 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
gentleman's point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
Under clause 2(b) of rule XXI, the Committee on Appropriations may
recommend rescissions only of appropriations that were contained in
prior appropriations Acts, but not rescissions of contract authority
that is contained in other laws.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained. The section is stricken
from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 128. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
provided under section 378 of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
(Public Law 106-346, 114 Stat. 1356, 1356A-41), for the
reconstruction of School Road East in Marlboro Township, New
Jersey, shall be available for the Spring Valley Road Project
in Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
Sec. 129. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available or limited by this Act shall be
used for (1) the development, planning, design, or
construction of a bridge joining the Island of Gravina to the
Community of Ketchikan, Alaska; (2) the development,
planning, design, or construction of the Knik Arm Bridge,
Alaska; or (3) any administrative expense of the Federal
Highway Administration to provide payment or reimbursement
for any expense incurred by the State of Alaska in carrying
out an activity described in paragraph (1) or (2).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
motor carrier safety grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out
sections 31102, 31104(a), 31106, 31107, 31109, 31309, 31313
of title 49, United States Code, and sections 4126 and 4128
of Public Law 109-59, $294,000,000, 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 in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for
which are in excess of $294,000,000, for ``Motor Carrier
Safety Grants''; of which $197,000,000 shall be available for
the motor carrier safety assistance program to carry out
sections 31102 and 31104(a) of title 49, United States Code;
$25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial driver's
license improvements program to carry out section 31313 of
title 49, United States Code; $32,000,000 shall be available
for the border enforcement grants program to carry out
section 31107 of title 49, United States Code; $5,000,000
shall be available for the performance and registration
information system management program to carry out sections
31106(b) and 31109 of title 49, United States Code;
$25,000,000 shall be available for the commercial vehicle
information systems and networks deployment program to carry
out section 4126 of Public Law 109-59; $3,000,000 shall be
available for the safety data improvement program to carry
out section 4128 of Public Law 109-59; and $7,000,000 shall
be available for the commercial driver's license information
system modernization program to carry out section 31309(e) of
title 49, United States Code.
motor carrier safety operations and programs
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in the implementation,
execution, and administration of the motor carrier safety
operations and programs pursuant to section 31104(i) of title
49, United States Code, and sections 4127 and 4134 of Public
Law 109-59, $223,000,000, 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: Provided, That none of the
funds derived from the Highway Trust Fund in this Act shall
be available for the implementation, execution or
administration of programs, the obligations for which are in
excess of $223,000,000, for ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations
and Programs'', of which $10,296,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2009, is for the research and
technology program and $1,000,000 shall be available for
commercial motor vehicle operator's grants to carry out
section 4134 of Public Law 109-59: Provided further, That
none of the funds under this heading for outreach and
education shall be available for transfer.
motor carrier safety
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations Acts, $27,122,669 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
national motor carrier safety program
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations Acts, $3,419,816 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
administrative provisions--federal motor carrier safety administration
Sec. 130. 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
subtitle C of title X of Public Law 105-59, chapter 301 of
title 49, United States Code, and part C of subtitle VI of
title 49, United States Code, $122,000,000, of which
$48,405,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2009:
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, $107,750,000, 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 in this Act shall be available for the planning
or execution of programs the total obligations for which, in
fiscal year 2007, are in excess of $107,750,000 for programs
authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.
(rescission)
Of amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations Acts, $6,772,751 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
[[Page H3841]]
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 (other than the Mass
Transit Account) and remain available until expended:
Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the implementation or execution of programs the
obligations for which are in excess of $4,000,000 for the
National Driver Register authorized under chapter 303 of
title 49, United States Code.
(rescission)
Of amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations Acts, $8,553 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
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, 406, 408, and 410 and
sections 2001(a)(11), 2009, 2010, and 2011 of Public Law 109-
59, to remain available until expended, $587,750,000 to be
derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account): 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
2007, are in excess of $587,750,000 for programs authorized
under 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 406, 408, and 410 and sections
2001(a)(11), 2009, 2010, and 2011 of Public Law 109-59, of
which $220,000,000 shall be for ``Highway Safety Programs''
under 23 U.S.C. 402; $25,000,000 shall be for ``Occupant
Protection Incentive Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 405;
$124,500,000 shall be for ``Safety Belt Performance Grants''
under 23 U.S.C. 406; $34,500,000 shall be for ``State Traffic
Safety Information System Improvements'' under 23 U.S.C. 408;
$125,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program'' under 23 U.S.C.
410; $17,750,000 shall be for ``Administrative Expenses''
under section 2001(a)(11) of Public Law 109-59; $29,000,000
shall be for ``High Visibility Enforcement Program'' under
section 2009 of Public Law 109-59; $6,000,000 shall be for
``Motorcyclist Safety'' under section 2010 of Public Law 109-
59; and $6,000,000 shall be for ``Child Safety and Child
Booster Seat Safety Incentive Grants'' under section 2011 of
Public Law 109-59: 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 $500,000 of the funds made available for
section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures
Grants'' shall be available for technical assistance to the
States: Provided further, That not to exceed $750,000 of the
funds made available for the ``High Visibility Enforcement
Program'' shall be available for the evaluation required
under section 2009(f) of Public Law 109-59.
(rescission)
Of amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations Acts, $5,646,863 in unobligated balances are
rescinded.
administrative provisions--national highway traffic safety
administration
Sec. 140. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
limitation on the use of funds made available under section
403 of title 23, United States Code, an additional $130,000
shall be made available to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, out of the amount limited for section
402 of title 23, United States Code, to pay for travel and
related expenses for State management reviews and to pay for
core competency development training and related expenses for
highway safety staff.
Federal Railroad Administration
safety and operations
For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad
Administration, not otherwise provided for, $150,083,000, of
which $13,870,890 shall remain available until expended.
railroad research and development
For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $34,650,000, 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 2007.
Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly
grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for the
maintenance and repair of capital infrastructure owned by the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, including railroad
equipment, rolling stock, legal mandates and other services,
$500,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
not to exceed $280,000,000 shall be for debt service
obligations: Provided, That the Secretary of Transportation
shall approve funding for capital expenditures, including
advance purchase orders, for the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation only after receiving and reviewing a grant
request for each specific capital grant justifying the
Federal support to the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided
further, That none of the funds under this heading may be
used to subsidize operating losses of the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation: Provided further, That none of the
funds under this heading may be used for capital projects not
approved by the Secretary of Transportation and on the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation's fiscal year 2007
business plan.
Efficiency Incentive Grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount to be made available to the
Secretary for efficiency incentive grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, $400,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary may
make grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
for an additional sum for operating subsidies at any time
during the fiscal year for the purpose of maintaining the
operation of existing or new Amtrak routes: Provided further,
That nothing in the previous proviso should be interpreted
either to encourage or discourage the Corporation with
respect to adjusting existing routes or frequencies: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Transportation shall reserve
$60,000,000 of the funds provided under this heading and is
authorized to transfer such sums to the Surface
Transportation Board, upon request from said Board, to carry
out directed service orders issued pursuant to section 11123
of title 49, United States Code, to respond to the cessation
of commuter rail operations by the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation: Provided further, That the Secretary
of Transportation shall make the reserved funds available to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation through an
appropriate grant instrument not earlier than September 1,
2007 to the extent that no directed service orders have been
issued by the Surface Transportation Board as of the date of
transfer or there is a balance of reserved funds not needed
by the Board to pay for any directed service order issued
through September 30, 2007: Provided further, That upon the
receipt and approval of Amtrak's fiscal year 2007 business
plan and if the Secretary deems it in the best interests of
the transportation system, in his sole discretion, the
Secretary may make grants to the Corporation at such times
and in such amounts for intercity passenger rail, including
coverage of operating losses of the Corporation: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall approve funding to cover
operating losses for the Corporation only after receiving and
reviewing a grant request for each specific train route:
Provided further, That each such grant request shall be
accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue
projection, and capital expenditure projection justifying the
Federal support to the Secretary's satisfaction: Provided
further, That the Corporation is directed to achieve savings
through the operating efficiencies including, but not limited
to, modifications to food and beverage service and first
class service and efficiencies in overhead: Provided further,
That the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation shall report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations beginning three months after the
date of the enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter
with estimates of the savings accrued as a result of all
operational reforms instituted by the Corporation: Provided
further, That if the Inspector General cannot certify that
the Corporation has achieved operational savings by July 1,
2007, none of the funds in this Act may be used after July 1,
2007, to subsidize the net losses of food and beverage
service and sleeper car service on any Amtrak route: Provided
further, That not later than 120 days after enactment of this
Act, Amtrak shall transmit to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations a detailed plan to improve the financial
performance of food and beverage service and a detailed plan
to improve the financial performance of first class service
(including sleeping car service) so that these services are
revenue neutral or better on a fully allocated cost basis no
later than October 1, 2008: Provided further, That these
plans shall include milestones and target dates for
implementation and projected cost savings in fiscal years
2007 and 2008 and that Amtrak shall report quarterly to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on its progress
in implementing these plans, quantify savings realized to
date on a monthly basis compared to those projected in the
plans, identify any changes in the plans or delays in
implementing these plans, and identify the causes of delay
and proposed corrective measures: Provided further, That not
later than 120 days after enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall
transmit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
a report on its overhead expenses as of October 1, 2006,
identifying those that are directly associated with a
specific route or group of routes or lines of
[[Page H3842]]
business and those system overhead expenses not directly
charged to specific trains, routes or other lines of
business, and a plan to reduce system overhead expenses by 10
percent annually through strategic investments, transfer of
responsibilities to entities that request Amtrak provide
specific services, and other measures: Provided further, That
as part of its report and plan to reduce overhead expenses,
Amtrak shall include a report on the expenses associated with
intercity passenger rail reservations and ticketing,
including a comparison of such expenses to those associated
with domestic airlines and intercity bus service, and a plan,
including milestones and target dates, for reducing the
expenses associated with its reservations and ticketing
including technology enhancements, the use of electronic
ticketing, and such other measures that will result in
expense savings, enhanced revenue, and assure accurate
manifests of passengers on specific trains at all times:
Provided further, That not later than October 1, 2008, Amtrak
shall reduce its system overhead expenses by 10 percent from
the level identified as existing on October 1, 2006, and in
each subsequent fiscal year, reduce system overhead expenses
by 10 percent of the level existing on October 1 of the
immediate preceding year: Provided further, That if the
Inspector General deems it necessary for the continued
development and implementation, not less than $5,000,000 of
the funds provided under this section shall be expended for
the managerial cost accounting system, which includes average
and marginal unit cost capability: Provided further, That
within 30 days of the development of the managerial cost
accounting system, the Department of Transportation's
Inspector General shall review and comment to the Secretary
and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations upon
the strengths and weaknesses of the system and how it best
can be implemented to improve decision making by the Board of
Directors and management of the Corporation: Provided
further, That no later than 120 days after enactment of this
Act, Amtrak shall transmit to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations a detailed plan, including milestones,
target dates and cost estimates, to improve its management
cost accounting system and integrate such system with the
Corporation's other processes including budgeting, financial
forecasting and modeling, and accounting, to permit more
informed decisions by management and the Board of Directors
as to the financial ramifications of proposed changes to
routes and services: Provided further, That, as part of the
plan to improve its management cost accounting system, Amtrak
shall include a plan to improve or replace the Corporation's
Route Profitability System (RPS) to provide more current,
accurate, and clear information on revenues and expenses on
all of the Corporation's routes and services, including the
allocation of expenses not directly charged to specific
trains, routes, or other business lines: Provided further,
That not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act,
the Corporation shall transmit, in electronic format, to the
Secretary, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a
comprehensive business plan approved by the Board of
Directors for fiscal year 2007 under 49 U.S.C. 24104(a):
Provided further, That the business plan shall include, as
applicable, targets for ridership, revenues, and capital and
operating expenses: Provided further, That the plan shall
also include a separate accounting of such targets for the
Northeast Corridor; commuter service; long-distance Amtrak
service; State-supported service; each intercity train route,
including Autotrain; and commercial activities including
contract operations: Provided further, That the business plan
shall include a description of the work to be funded, along
with cost estimates and an estimated timetable for completion
of the projects covered by the business plan: Provided
further, That the Corporation shall continue to provide
monthly reports in electronic format regarding the pending
business plan, which shall describe the work completed to
date, any changes to the business plan, and the reasons for
such changes, and shall identify all sole source contract
awards which shall be accompanied by a justification as to
why said contract was awarded on a sole source basis:
Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be
used for operating expenses, including advance purchase
orders, not approved by the Secretary and in the
Corporation's fiscal year 2007 business plan: Provided
further, That the Corporation shall display the business plan
and all subsequent supplemental plans on the Corporation's
website within a reasonable timeframe following their
submission to the appropriate entities: Provided further,
That none of the funds under this heading may be obligated or
expended until the Corporation agrees to continue to abide by
the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 11 of the
summary of conditions for the direct loan agreement of June
28, 2002, in the same manner as in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the Secretary
may, at his discretion, condition the award of efficiency
incentive grant funds on reform requirements for the
Corporation and his assessment of progress towards such
reform requirements: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this Act may be used after March 1, 2006, to
support any route on which Amtrak offers a discounted fare of
more than 50 percent off the normal, peak fare.
Administrative Provisions--Federal Railroad Administration
Sec. 150. 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
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal
Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of
title 49, United States Code, $85,000,000: Provided, That of
the funds available under this heading, not to exceed
$1,063,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Administrator; not to exceed $7,654,000 shall be available
for the Office of Administration; not to exceed $4,273,000
shall be available for the Office of the Chief Counsel; not
to exceed $1,394,000 shall be available for the Office of
Communication and Congressional Affairs; not to exceed
$8,403,000 shall be available for the Office of Program
Management; not to exceed $9,259,000 shall be available for
the Office of Budget and Policy; not to exceed $4,876,000
shall be available for the Office of Demonstration and
Innovation; not to exceed $3,272,000 shall be available for
the Office of Civil Rights; not to exceed $4,718,000 shall be
available for the Office of Planning; not to exceed
$22,420,000 shall be available for regional offices; and not
to exceed $17,668,000 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 2008 President's budget, the
Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to Congress the
annual report on new starts, including proposed allocations
of funds for fiscal year 2008.
Formula and Bus Grants
(liquidation of contract authority)
(limitation on obligations)
(including rescission)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310, 5311,
5316, 5317, 5320, 5335, 5339, and 5340 and section 3038 of
Public Law 105-178, as amended, $3,925,000,000, to be derived
from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and
to remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
available for the implementation or execution of programs
authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310,
5311, 5316, 5317, 5320, 5335, 5339, and 5340 and section 3038
of Public Law 105-178, as amended, shall not exceed total
obligations of $7,262,775,000 in fiscal year 2007: Provided
further, That $28,660,920 in unobligated balances are
cancelled.
Research and University Research Centers
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5306, 5312-
5315, 5322, and 5506, $65,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That $9,300,000 is available to carry out
the transit cooperative research program under section 5313
of title 49, United States Code, $4,300,000 is available for
the National Transit Institute under section 5315 of title
49, United States Code, $7,000,000 is available for
university transportation centers program under section 5506
of title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That
$49,400,000 is available to carry out national research
programs under sections 5312, 5313, 5314, and 5322 of title
49, United States Code.
Capital Investment Grants
(including rescission)
For necessary expenses to carry out section 5309 of title
49, United States Code, $1,566,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That $17,760,000 in unobligated
balances are cancelled.
Administrative Provisions--Federal Transit Administration
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 160. The limitations on obligations for the programs
of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any
authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for
obligation, or to any other authority previously made
available for obligation.
Sec. 161. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
made available by this Act under ``Federal Transit
Administration, Capital investment grants'' and bus and bus
facilities under ``Federal Transit Administration, Formula
and Bus Grants'' for projects
[[Page H3843]]
specified in this Act or identified in reports accompanying
this Act not obligated by September 30, 2009, and other
recoveries, shall be made available for other projects under
49 U.S.C. 5309.
Sec. 162. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated before October 1, 2006, under any section
of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain
available for expenditure may be transferred to and
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for
any such section.
Sec. 163. During fiscal years 2007 and 2008, each Federal
Transit Administration grant for a project that involves the
acquisition of rehabilitation of a bus to be used in public
transportation shall be for 100 percent of the net capital
costs of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric
propulsion system and any equipment related to such a system:
Provided, That the Secretary shall have the discretion to
determine, through practicable administrative procedures, the
costs attributable to the system and related-equipment.
Sec. 164. 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
for activities eligible in the year the funds were
appropriated.
Sec. 165. Hereinafter, the non-Federal share of the net
project cost of the San Gabriel Valley Metro Gold Line
connecting Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena shall be
counted toward satisfying the Federal matching requirements
under 49 U.S.C. 5309 on any phase of the San Gabriel Valley
Gold Line Foothill Extension continuing from Pasadena to
Montclair.
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, $17,425,000, 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, $154,440,000, to remain available until
expended.
Operations and Training
For necessary expenses of operations and training
activities authorized by law, $116,442,000, of which
$24,009,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2007,
for salaries and benefits of employees of the United States
Merchant Marine Academy; of which $14,850,000 shall remain
available until expended for capital improvements at the
United States Merchant Marine Academy; and of which
$7,920,000 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, $25,740,000, to remain available until
expended.
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account
(including transfer of funds and rescission)
For administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed
loan program, not to exceed $3,317,000, which shall be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
Operations and Training: Provided, That of the unobligated
balances available under this heading, $2,000,000 are
cancelled.
National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program
(rescission)
All unobligated balances under this heading are rescinded.
Administrative Provisions--Maritime Administration
Sec. 170. 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. 171. No obligations shall be incurred during the
current fiscal year from the construction fund established by
the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.),
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, $17,721,000, of
which $639,000 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, $27,225,000, of which $2,111,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2009: 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, $75,735,000, of which $18,810,000
shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
shall remain available until September 30, 2009; of which
$56,925,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
of which $24,000,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2009: 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. 5128(b),
$198,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That
not more than $28,328,000 shall be made available for
obligation in fiscal year 2007 from amounts made available by
49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5128(b)-(c): Provided further, That
none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i),
5128(b), or 5128(c) 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, $6,367,000, of which $1,120,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2009: 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, $64,143,000: 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, $25,618,000:
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 2007, to result in a final appropriation from the
general fund estimated at no more than $24,368,000.
General Provisions--Department of Transportation
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 180. 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
[[Page H3844]]
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. 181. 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. 182. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 110 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. 183. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 184. (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 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. 185. 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 ``Research and University Research Centers''
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. 186. 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. 187. 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. 188. 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. 189. 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 or contractor support in the implementation
of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002: 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 the Secretary shall report annually to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the amount and
reasons for these transfers: 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.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of
Transportation Appropriations Act, 2007''.
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, $223,786,000, of which not to exceed $8,760,000 is
for executive direction program activities; not to exceed
$8,741,000 is for general counsel program activities; not to
exceed $41,947,000 is for economic policies and programs
activities; not to exceed $27,086,000 is for financial
policies and programs activities; not to exceed $45,401,000
is for terrorism and financial intelligence activities; not
to exceed $18,534,000 is for Treasury-wide management
policies and programs activities; and not to exceed
$73,317,000 is for administration programs activities:
Provided, 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 three percent by all such
transfers: Provided further, That any change in funding
greater than three 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, 2008, for information technology modernization
requirements; not to exceed $100,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; and not to exceed $258,000 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, $5,114,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008, is for the Treasury-wide
Financial Statement Audit and Internal Control Program, 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.
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, $34,032,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2009: 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 under this heading shall be used to
support or supplement ``Internal Revenue Service, Operations
Support'' 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, 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,
$17,352,000, 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, 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, $136,469,000; and
of which not to exceed $1,500 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses.
Air Transportation Stabilization Program Account
In fiscal year 2007, the Air Transportation Stabilization
Board may charge fees to a borrower for the costs to the Air
Transportation Stabilization Board associated with bankruptcy
proceedings of the borrower. Such fees shall be collected and
deposited in the Air Transportation Stabilization Program
Account, to be available for such costs.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel
and training expenses of non-Federal and foreign government
personnel to attend meetings and training concerned with
domestic and foreign financial intelligence activities, law
enforcement, and financial regulation; not to exceed $14,000
for official reception and representation expenses; and for
assistance to
[[Page H3845]]
Federal law enforcement agencies, with or without
reimbursement, $84,066,000, of which not to exceed
$14,012,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2009;
and of which $8,651,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2008: 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,
$233,654,000, of which not to exceed $9,220,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2009, 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, $92,604,000; 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 2007 under such
section 5136 for circulating coinage and protective service
capital investments of the United States Mint shall not
exceed $30,200,000.
Bureau of the Public Debt
administering the public debt
For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt
issues of the United States, $180,789,000, 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 September 30, 2009,
for systems modernization: Provided, That the sum
appropriated herein from the general fund for fiscal year
2007 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 2007 appropriation from the general fund
estimated at $177,789,000. 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 (Public Law 103-325),
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, $40,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008, of which up to $12,800,000 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: 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
Taxpayer Services
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service to
provide taxpayer services, including pre-filing assistance
and education, filing and account services, taxpayer advocacy
services, and other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner,
$2,059,151,000, of which up to $4,100,000 shall be for the
Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program, and of which
$8,000,000 shall be available for low-income taxpayer clinic
grants.
Enforcement
(Including Transfer of Funds)
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service to
determine and collect owed taxes, to provide legal and
litigation support, to conduct criminal investigations, to
enforce criminal statutes related to violations of internal
revenue laws and other financial crimes, to purchase (for
police-type use, not to exceed 850) and hire of passenger
motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)), and to provide other
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may
be determined by the Commissioner, $4,757,126,000, of which
not less than $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 Internal Revenue Service Operations Support
appropriation solely for the purposes of the Interagency
Crime and Drug Enforcement program: Provided further, That
this transfer authority shall be in addition to any other
transfer authority provided in this Act.
Operations Support
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service to
operate and support taxpayer services and tax law enforcement
programs, including rent payments; facilities services;
printing; postage; physical security; headquarters and other
IRS-wide administration activities; research and statistics
of income; telecommunications; information technology
development, enhancement, operations, maintenance, and
security; the hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 US.C.
1343(b)); and other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner;
$3,438,404,000, of which $1,447,451,000 shall be for
information systems and telecommunications support; of which
not to exceed $1,000,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2009, for research; of which not to exceed
$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: Provided, That of
the amount made available for information systems and
telecommunication support, $75,000,000 shall remain available
until September 30, 2008, for information technology support.
Business Systems Modernization
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
the business systems modernization program, $212,310,000, of
which not less than $167,310,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2009, 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 the funds for capital
asset acquisition of information technology systems 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.
{time} 1815
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GARY G. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California:
Page 73, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
Page 92, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a modest
amendment to ensure HUD can continue to work the redevelopment of
brownfield sites to local communities.
I would like to commend Chairman Knollenberg. I am on the Financial
Services Committee and Transportation Committee, and he has worked very
hard and responsibly to fund the Nation's housing and transportation
needs during this very, very tight budget year. I am pleased that the
bill boosts highway spending, supports aviation, addresses America's
critical housing needs, supports national antidrug efforts.
This amendment today basically keeps the BEDI program going, which
redevelops brownfields through the HUD administration. The estimate is
450,000 vacant sites lay idle throughout this country. They are
underused industrial sites as a result of environmental contamination
caused by chemical compounds and other hazardous substances.
The basic year's budget transfers all the funding to EPA. EPA has a
completely different objective than HUD does through the BEDI Program.
BEDI grants are basically used for economic development. We passed out
a bill I offered last year, H.R. 280, that is in the Senate today to
restructure the BEDI Program, making a simpler program more usable to
local communities. Currently, to get a BEDI grant you have to apply for
a section 108 loan, then in repayment you have to guarantee your CDBG
funds and pledge those to repay that loan. Some communities don't
receive CDBG funds directly, so they
[[Page H3846]]
could not apply for section 108. And the other communities who can,
don't want to readily pledge those CDBG funds because many community
organizations and efforts are undertaken with the utilization of these
funds. These brownfield sites threaten our groundwater. They cost local
communities jobs and revenues. It is estimated if we could clean these
450,000 brownfield sites up, it would generate an additional 550,000
jobs throughout this country and $2.4 billion in new tax revenues for
its cities and towns.
The communities I represent and communities throughout this country
want this program. The problem they have had is it has been a complex
program in the past. I thank Chairman Knollenberg. Last year you
accepted an amendment of mine which kept this program going. And the
understanding I had was we need to do legislation to modify the program
in order to make it more accessible to communities. We have done that.
It passed out of this floor on unanimous consent. It is in the Senate
currently. And we hope to have that addressed in the Senate and made
into law so we can keep this viable program going.
Eddie Bernice Johnson has been a true partner working with me on
this, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. 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, as I stated last year, eliminating the funding for
brownfield redevelopment programs should be reconsidered. As a result,
I rise today in strong support of the Miller-Johnson amendment to H.R.
5576.
Similar to last year, the gentleman from California and I offered
this amendment today because we both feel that it is time for this body
to get really serious about eliminating the Nation's estimated 500,000
brownfields.
The amendment increases the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Brownfields Redevelopment Program account by $15 million.
In its present form, H.R. 5576 provides no funding for a program that
has helped to transform communities, large and small, throughout the
country.
The amendment calls for a corresponding offset through a reduction of
$15 million within the Business Systems Modernization Account in the
Treasury title. Currently, the Business Systems Modernization Account
is $45 million above the administration's request, and $15.3 million
above last year's request.
While I respect the committee's view that HUD funding is no longer
essential or appropriate due to the EPA's expanded authority and
increased appropriations, this is certainly a view that I do not share.
First of all, I believe it is important to note that there are clear
distinctions between EPA's Brownfields Program relative to HUD's.
Although both are equally important, EPA's program focuses primarily
on cleanup, whereas the focus of HUD's program is on redevelopment of
brownfield sites once cleanup is complete.
It is true that the authority of the EPA has been expanded. However,
the consistent and chronic underfunding of the Brownfields Program by
the President and the Congress leave much to be desired in terms of
corresponding appropriations.
In fact, appropriations for brownfields assessment and cleanup
peaked.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California was allowed
to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Appropriations for brownfields
assessment cleanup peaked at $97.7 million in fiscal year 2002 and is
only $89 million in this year's interior and environment appropriations
bill.
Last week before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
where I serve as ranking member, an EPA assistant administrator
testified that for fiscal year 2006 EPA received nearly 700 proposals
for Brownfield Grants. Unfortunately, EPA funded less than 45 percent
of these.
Mr. Chairman, our communities are very deserving of these strong HUD-
administered brownfields programs. If you watch the game tonight, look
at the American Center. Oh, you won't see that one. It will be in Miami
tonight. But that was a brownfield in Dallas.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I have always felt very strongly about Mr. Miller and his ideas. I do
have a problem with this particular amendment. I oppose any amendment
to continue the Brownfields Program, which is recommended for
elimination as part of a broad sweep of lower priority programs. We
must reduce or eliminate these duplicative programs in order to free up
the funds for the highest priorities in HUD, which is, among other
things, assistance to extremely low-income families and restoring funds
for community development.
Last year Congress recognized the lack of use of this program and
rescinded $10 million in unused prior-year appropriations. The money
wasn't being spent.
The activities of the Brownfields Program remain, as they have been,
eligible uses for CDBG funds. States and communities can use these
funds for this purpose if they choose to do so.
In addition, there are nearly two dozen Federal programs that can
help communities in one way or another to assess, clean up and reuse
brownfield sites.
EPA's Brownfield Program has awarded 883 assessment grants totaling
$225.4 million, 202 revolving loan fund grants totaling $186.7 million,
238 cleanup grants totaling $42.7 million.
By comparison, HUD's program has been extremely slow and funds are
often used as a loan loss reserve, rather than as grants for
reconstructing sites.
HUD grants are a tiny fraction of project development costs. They
represent just 2.3 percent of the total development costs on average.
For each HUD dollar, there was $28 in private and $12 in State and
local funds committed with an average of five State, local, and private
sources of funding or financing for each project. HUD funding is not
critical to any decision to proceed with a project or makes any
difference to the completion of a project.
This amendment, and we are being hit already early in title II, this
amendment cuts the IRS's Business Systems Modernization Program by $15
million. While it appears this account is $45 million above the
President's request, it is actually just a restructuring of the IRS
accounts. In fact, BSM is currently funded below last year's level.
Cutting this $15 million will force IRS to lay off many of the 317
personnel. Let me repeat that: 317 personnel who are currently working
on the BSM project, delaying all work on the modernization of IRS
legacy systems.
So it is for those reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a final plea for this program.
Even if there might be a few people less in these Departments, it does
not compare with what a small investment does to get rid of brownfields
anywhere they are, because once this property is put back on the tax
rolls, it generates more than ever than what is put into it.
{time} 1830
And I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Knollenberg because he
has been helpful. But I would make a plea that this is a lot larger
than what was requested, and that is the reason why we chose to take it
from there.
We all have to tighten our belts. We all have to give up a little
more than what we had. But I can assure you that allowing property to
not be on a tax roll will go a lot longer way when you put the money
there, just a small amount of money, than doing without two or three
staff people.
I just imagine that any Department in this Nation can function with
just a
[[Page H3847]]
few less staff than what they have now and do the same job. If we
cannot, then we are not doing as well as the private industry because
they have cut half of their staff and are still doing the same job.
That is called higher productivity, and maybe that is what we need in
some of these Departments is higher productivity, while half of the
people at home and the other half are doing the full job. But this will
offer jobs. It puts property back onto the tax rolls by allowing it to
be redeveloped, and I do not know a single city or rural area that
could not use a little brownfield encouragement through their funds.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this is the second
year in a row that we have had this discussion, and it is predicated on
the idea that somewhere there is a sense that the EPA has a program for
brownfields that does the same thing that this HUD program for
brownfields does.
Now, to the very best of my knowledge, and very recently rechecked,
the EPA does assessments of hazardous materials on old industrial sites
but does nothing to redevelop those sites so that this program is, to
the best of my knowledge, the only place that we have done
redevelopment of otherwise old hazardous material sites, industrial
sites that can be put back into use.
Now, last year, even though it had been zeroed out, we ended up with
a final budget of $9.9 million by amendment adopted on the floor. The
offset here is an unpalatable offset. But, again, my belief is that the
Brownfields Program is at least as important as the IRS Business
Systems Program. If this amendment is defeated, I will assure the
gentlewoman from Texas that I will do my best to see that something
better comes out of the final process and the conference process on
this legislation.
In the meantime, I will join her in support of the legislation.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Miller Brownfields
amendment. The Amendment provides $15 million in funding for the
Brownfields program.
Again, let me thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Joe Knollenberg
and the Ranking Member, John W. Olver, for their work on this bill. HUD
programs, however, have witnessed major cuts over the past several
years. What I find interesting about this bill is that it does not
provide any funding for the Brownfields Economic Development
Initiatives (BEDI) program, but instead includes Brownfields
redevelopment as an eligible activity under the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) program. Of course, this does not take into account
the existence of numerous Brownfields sites across the country. These
sites are often located in strategically important areas of a city or
county, where economic development projects have been planned. Without
funding for the Brownfields program many of these projects will not be
undertaken.
The estimate of the number of vacant and underused sites around the
U.S. is more than 500,000. If we could put these sites into productive
economic development uses we stand to increase jobs by 500,000 million,
while generating $2.4 billion in new tax revenues. The Brownfields
program that I would like to see funded is truly an economic
development tool that has been very effective in assisting communities
to reclaim important parcels of underused land. To the extent that we
eliminate funding for the BEDI program we will seriously undermine
economic development efforts across-the-board. In the City of Los
Angeles and in Los Angeles County, the BEDI program supports a wide
variety of projects, including developments with a strong business
attraction, expansion and/or retentions component, as well employment
creation.
One example is the use of a $1.75 million BEDI grant that was used to
convert a contaminated 130 acre oil production and storage site
facility into a warehouse and distribution center, which produced 679
jobs--the City of Sante Fe Springs Golden Springs Development Park.
As many of you know, the House last year unanimously approved an
amendment to provide $24 million for Brownfields, and the conference
report provided $10 million. In addition, the House recently passed
H.R. 280, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act to provide
greater access to the BEDI program.
Whether you agree with the $15 million funding level is not
important. What is really critical is that the program be in place to
continue to assist communities to clean-up the mess made by industry,
as well as the inadequate federal response. Many communities are at a
critical stage in revitalizing themselves. A major tool at their
disposal has been the BEDI program. As such, I urge your support for
the Miller amendment.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-
Johnson amendment to restore funding for the HUD Brownfields program.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from California for his
amendment. As a former mayor, I believe that this amendment will have a
very positive impact on our Nation's cities.
Since the inception of its Brownfield programs, the federal
government has allocated over $800 million in brownfield assessment and
cleanup funds.
In addition, this investment has leveraged over $8 billion in cleanup
and redevelopment dollars, a better than 10-to-1 return on investment.
It has resulted in the assessment of more than 8,000 properties and
helped create over 37,000 jobs.
This is because EPA and HUD grants work in conjunction with funding
from state, local and private sources to address cleanup of brownfield
sites.
Brownfields sites include inactive factories, gas stations, salvage
yards, and abandoned warehouses.
These sites drive down property values, provide little or no tax
revenue, and contribute to community blight.
HUD's brownfields program serves as a catalyst to spur private sector
investment, job creation and economic development in communities.
HUD's program supports sustainable economic development that
leverages investments from other public and private sources.
In comments from last year's floor debate, an opponent of the HUD
Brownfields program stated that ``HUD funds on average are just about
2.3 percent of the total development cost of each project. Moreover,
for each HUD dollar, there are $28 in private and $12 in State and
local funds committed to the project.''
These statistics were cited as a reason to eliminate the HUD
Brownfields program, but instead they demonstrate its unique value.
An initial influx of capital is often the greatest barrier to
remediation of brownfields sites, and HUD's program provides that
essential start up money.
The HUD program has been remarkably effective at leveraging private
and local financial resources to achieve new successes on old
properties.
This is an exciting time in the brownfields marketplace. Federal
brownfields programs have provided the foundation on which state
initiatives have flourished.
New Jersey has taken the lead creating a Federal Brownfields Inter-
Agency Working Group comprised of 14 federal and state agencies.
This unprecedented coordination of agencies, community partners and
private investors has enabled New Jersey to solve environmental
problems while providing businesses a place to locate, create jobs,
build housing and entertainment venues--all without having to go into
farmlands and areas with open space.
This new business activity, housing or other types of redevelopment
can restore the proud heritage of successful enterprise to our historic
cities and other locales.
Throughout New Jersey and the country, there are thousands of
abandoned structures that were once thriving businesses, often part of
large industrial centers.
Economic development matched with environmental cleanup has resulted
in the rebirth of many industrial and commercial properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
Anyone who cares about our nation's cities celebrates these
successes, and welcomes the flexibility of the program. HUD's
particular expertise in incorporating brownfields remediation into a
larger strategy for economic development and community revitalization
is essential to the success we have had and will continue to have in
the future.
I urge my colleagues to support this very worthwhile amendment to
restore funding for the HUD Brownfields program.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. 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 California will be
postponed.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simmons) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the
Committee of
[[Page H3848]]
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5576) 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, 2007, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________